SECTION VI.OF THE CHAPELS.

Mr. John Wilde, of Lowestoft, having, by will, dated the 22nd of July, 1735, given several estates to this town, after the decease of Elizabeth Smithson, for the purpose of a school for the education of children belonging to this parish; and the said Elizabeth Smithson (afterwards Perryson) having departed this life the 3rd of December, 1781, the minister and churchwardens, in pursuance of the trust reposed in them by the said will, on the 21st of March, 1788, began to erect a building, for the purpose of a schoolroom, according to the directions of the said will; which building is thirty-six feet in length and twenty-five feet in breadth, and is situated at the bottom of the hill, on the east side of the Stone House which he gave to the parish by the said will; which house stands on the east side of High street, a little to the north of Rant’s score. Under the first stone of this building are deposited several silver and copper coins of his Majesty.

Subjoined is an extract of the Last Will and Testament of JOHN WILDE, of Lowestoft, gentleman, (who died in April, 1738,) bearing date the 22nd of July, 1735:

Also I give and devise unto the town of Lowestoft, for ever, all that my dwelling-house, fish-houses, yards, gardens, and appurtenances whatsoever to the same belonging, in the occupation of the Rev. Shewell. Also I give and devise to the said town of Lowestoft, for ever that all my meadow, in Lowestoft aforesaid, now in the occupation of John Pope. Also I give and devise unto the said town of Lowestoft, for ever, all that my house commonly called Rotterdam, with the yards, gardens, and appurtenances whatever to the same belonging, now in the occupation of James Pottle. Also I give unto the said town of Lowestoft, for ever, all my dole-lands in Lowestoft, together with all my lands, tenements, and hereditaments (if any there be not before by me given and bequeathed in this my will) whatsoever, which I have, at the time of my decease, in the town of Lowestoft aforesaid. Also I give and devise unto the said town of Lowestoft, for ever, the reversion (whenever it shall happen, after the death of the said Elizabeth Smithson) of all my messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and premises, situate, lying, and being in Worlingham aforesaid, now in the tenure or occupation of Nicholas Matcheston, or his assigns, under-tenant, or under-tenants; all which premises, before by me given to the said town of Lowestoft, I give to the uses, intents, and purposes hereafter in this my last will more particularly declared, limited, and appointed. And I do nominate the minister and churchwardens, for the time being, for ever, hereafter to be trustees of all these my bequests to the said town of Lowestoft, strictly charging and commanding them religiously and conscientiously to discharge their trust, hereby by me given to them as they will answer it to Almighty God another day, in seeing the same performed according to the true intent and meaning of this my last will and testament, which now follows. And, first, my mind and will is, that all the same estates before by me givenand devised to the said town of Lowestoft, together with the rents and profits thereof, shall be applied for a virtuous and learned schoolmaster, who shall teach forty boys to write and read, and cast accounts; and also shall teach them the Latin tongue. And my mind and will is, that the said schoolmaster shall be chosen by the said minister and churchwardens for the time being, upon every vacancy that shall happen by death, misdemeanour, or misbehaviour of the said schoolmaster. All which I leave to the discretion and management of the said Minister and Churchwardens for the time being, to place, replace, or remove the said schoolmaster as they shall think proper; desiring them they will act impartially in placing or removing the said schoolmaster, and not choose by favour or affection, but having virtue, religion, and merit chiefly in view. And my mind and will further is, that when all the said bequests, before by me given and bequeathed to the said town of Lowestoft, shall become due to the said (then, and not before), the salary of the said schoolmaster shall be forty pounds per annum; which I will be paid half-yearly to the said schoolmaster, upon the feasts of St. Michael, the Archangel, and the annunciation of the blessed Lady Mary the Virgin, by equal portions in every year. And my mind and will is, that until the death of the said Elizabeth Smithson, the profits of the other bequests before by me given and devised to the said town of Lowestoft shall be at their own discretion, so as the same be expended towards the encouraging of learning; and therefore would have it employed, as far as the rents will go, towards educating children in manner aforesaid. And my mind and will further is, and I do hereby give and devise unto the Minister of the said parish of Lowestoft for the time being, for ever, the sum of one pound and one shilling; and unto the clerk of the said parish, for ever, the sum of ten shillings; and unto the sexton of the said parish, for ever, the sum of five shillings. All which said sums of one pound and one shilling, ten shillings, and five shillings, I will shall be paid out of the rents and profits of all the messuages, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and premises, before by me given and devised, in this my will, to the said town of Lowestoft, for the purposes aforesaid. And I bind all the same for the payment thereof. And my mind and will is, that the said several sums shall be paid to the several persons always yearly upon the twenty-third day of December, in every year; but upon this condition, nevertheless, that the minister of the said parish of Lowestoft for the time being, shall always yearly upon the twenty-third day of December in every year, sometime in the forenoon, preach a sermon (except the said day should fall on a Sunday, and then my mind and will is, that the said sermon should be preached on the Monday next following); and his text I desire should be these express words—“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” And my mind and will further is, that the said sermon should chiefly tend upon the great necessity of the good education of children, and the ill consequence that attends the neglect of it. And in case any overplus should arise out of the said several bequests before by me given and devised to the said town of Lowestoft, after the said salary of forty pounds to be paid to the said schoolmaster, in manner aforesaid; and the said several sums of one pound one shilling, ten shillings, and five shillings, to be paid to the several persons above mentioned, be fully paid and satisfied, such overplus, if any should be, or whatever it be, I give and devise the same, for such charitable purposes and uses as the Minister and Churchwardens of Lowestoft aforesaid, for the time being, shall think proper to distribute, so as such overplus, if any there be, or whatever it be, shall be distributed every year.

Will of Mr. John Hayward, of Lowestoft, to whom some of the poor were indebted for weekly donation of bread:

In the name of God, Amen. I, John Hayward, of Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, mariner, being of sound and perfect mind and memory, do make and ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following: First. I commit my soul into the hands of Almighty God, etc., and for settling my goods and temporal estate, I do give and dispose of the same as followeth: I give and bequeath all my messuages or tenements unto Mary, my loving wife, during the time of her natural life. I give and bequeath (after my said wife’s decease) unto my son, Robert Hayward, all my houses, out-houses, fish-houses, lands and appurtenances whatsoever, to hold to him for and duringthe term of his natural life, and after his decease to the heirs of his body lawfully to be begotten. And for want of such heirs, give all the same lands and premises to and amongst all my daughters that shall then be living. To hold them jointly, and to their heirs for ever, so as, and upon condition, that my said son Robert, or his heirs, or my daughters, or such person or persons as shall enjoy my said messuages, lands, and tenements, shall pay or cause to be paid unto my grandson, Samuel Mariner, the sum of fifty pounds, of lawful money of Great Britain, at the age of one and twenty years. And also shall pay yearly, and every year, into the hands of the churchwardens of the parish of Lowestoft, and their successors, for ever, the sum of two and fifty shillings. The first payment within twelve months next after the decease of my said wife, and so to be received yearly by the churchwardens, and employed and laid out twelve pence weekly, and every week in the year, for fourteen loaves of bread, to be by them given every Sunday, or Lord’s day, throughout the year, for ever, after divine service in the afternoon, at the parish church of Lowestoft aforesaid, to fourteen such poor people as they shall think fit. Which said sums of fifty pounds, payable to my grandson, Samuel Mariner, and two and fifty shillings, given payable yearly for ever, for bread for the poor, my will is, shall be paid out of the estate wherein I now dwell. And I do make all the same estate liable and subject to the payment of the same, as fully and amply as may or can be. And my will is, that the same may so continue for ever. Except such persons as shall enjoy the same, after the payment of the aforesaid fifty pounds to my grandchild, shall give any other security to the churchwardens and trustees of Lowestoft aforesaid, for the continuance of the payment of two and fifty shillings yearly, for ever, as they, the said churchwardens and trustees, shall think fit to accept.[134a]This is a true copy of the clause of Mr. John Hayward’s will, which was proved at the Bishop of Norwich’s principal office (19th of August 1719), holden in the precinct of the cathedral church of Norwich; where the original will may at any time be seen.JOHN TANNER,Vicar of Lowestoft, and one of the executors of the said John Hayward.

This is a true copy of the clause of Mr. John Hayward’s will, which was proved at the Bishop of Norwich’s principal office (19th of August 1719), holden in the precinct of the cathedral church of Norwich; where the original will may at any time be seen.

JOHN TANNER,

Vicar of Lowestoft, and one of the executors of the said John Hayward.

A decree, judgment, and orders made sett down by Sir Arthur Heveningham, Sir Miles Corbett, knts., Henry Gawdy, Esq., and Mr. Dr. Sucklinge, doctor in divinity; by virtue of her Majesty’s commission to them and others, out of her Majesty’s High Court of Chancery, under the great seale of England, directed and hereunto annexed, upon a verdict by force of the like commission, to them and others directed by them, the second day of October, in the four and fortieth year of her Majesty’s most gracious and happy reign, taken and returned unto the said Court of Chancery upon the statute made in the High Court of Parliament holden the seven and twentieth day of October, in the three and fortieth year of her Majesty’s reign, intituled an Act to redresse the misemployments of lands, goods, and stocks of money, before the making thereof, given to charitable uses, as followeth:

Imprimis. We do order, adjudge, and decree that the free grammar schoole mentioned in the said verdict shall be and remain a free grammar-schoole, and shall have continuance for ever within the said town of Lowestoft; and the same schoole shall consist of a schoolmaster learn’d in the art and knowledge of grammar, and able to instruct and teach the rules and principles thereof and the Latin tongue, and other things incident, necessary, and belonging to the said art, to be master, tutor, and teacher of the schollars in the said schoole, consisting of forty schollars, and not above, to be taught and instructed within the said schoole.Item. We do order, adjudge, and decree that the house within the said town of Lowestoft, which is now used for the schoole-house for the said master and scholars,[134b], shall, for ever, hereafter, continue and be the schoolehouse whereinthe schoolemaster of the said schoole shall teach and instruct the schollars thereof; and that Stephen Phillips, now schoolemaster of the said schoole, shall remaine schoolemaster thereof; and that he and his successors, and all other schoolmasters of the said schoole, shall, for ever hereafter be called and known by the name of “Mr. Annott, his schoolemaster.” And whensoever, and as often as it shall happen, that the place and roome of the schoolmaster hall become void, we do order adjudge and decree, that the Chancellor for the time being, to the Bishop, for the time being, of the see of Norwich, or sede vacante the guardian of the spiritualities, shall have the nomination and appointment of the schoolemaster of the said schoole within the said town.We do also order, adjudge, and decree, that the forty schollars of the said schoole shall be of such children as are or shall be borne within the said towne of Lowestoft, if there be or shall be sufficient of such within the said town to supply and fill up the said number of forty. And for want of a number sufficient of them to supply or make up the said number of forty, then that the children of the inhabitants within the said town, albeit the said children be or shall not be born within the said town, to supply and make up the said number of forty. And if these also neither are nor shall not be sufficient to supply and make up the said number of forty, then that the children of the inhabitants within the hundred of Lothingland and Mutford shall be nominated, elected and appointed to supply and make up the said number of forty; the choise and appointment of which schollars shall be to the said Stephen Phillips, now schoolemaster, so long as he shall be schoolemaster there, and to such as from time to time shall supply the roome and place of the said schoolemaster within the said town; so that he do nominate and appoint to the number of forty scholars, and not above; and that he shall not take for the nomination and appointment so by him to be made above the sume of twenty pence for every schoolar within the said schoole.(Examined by me,)Richard Moss, Dep. Reg.

Item. We do order, adjudge, and decree that the house within the said town of Lowestoft, which is now used for the schoole-house for the said master and scholars,[134b], shall, for ever, hereafter, continue and be the schoolehouse whereinthe schoolemaster of the said schoole shall teach and instruct the schollars thereof; and that Stephen Phillips, now schoolemaster of the said schoole, shall remaine schoolemaster thereof; and that he and his successors, and all other schoolmasters of the said schoole, shall, for ever hereafter be called and known by the name of “Mr. Annott, his schoolemaster.” And whensoever, and as often as it shall happen, that the place and roome of the schoolmaster hall become void, we do order adjudge and decree, that the Chancellor for the time being, to the Bishop, for the time being, of the see of Norwich, or sede vacante the guardian of the spiritualities, shall have the nomination and appointment of the schoolemaster of the said schoole within the said town.

We do also order, adjudge, and decree, that the forty schollars of the said schoole shall be of such children as are or shall be borne within the said towne of Lowestoft, if there be or shall be sufficient of such within the said town to supply and fill up the said number of forty. And for want of a number sufficient of them to supply or make up the said number of forty, then that the children of the inhabitants within the said town, albeit the said children be or shall not be born within the said town, to supply and make up the said number of forty. And if these also neither are nor shall not be sufficient to supply and make up the said number of forty, then that the children of the inhabitants within the hundred of Lothingland and Mutford shall be nominated, elected and appointed to supply and make up the said number of forty; the choise and appointment of which schollars shall be to the said Stephen Phillips, now schoolemaster, so long as he shall be schoolemaster there, and to such as from time to time shall supply the roome and place of the said schoolemaster within the said town; so that he do nominate and appoint to the number of forty scholars, and not above; and that he shall not take for the nomination and appointment so by him to be made above the sume of twenty pence for every schoolar within the said schoole.

(Examined by me,)

Richard Moss, Dep. Reg.

Writings of great length concerning this school could at one time be seen at the Episcopal Office at Norwich. Probably the original deed of Mr. Annott, bearing date 10th of June, 1570, for founding the school, the commission, inquisition and verdict, as well as the above decree, are included amongst them. Mr. Annott dying without issue, his heirs at law disputed the legality of the donation, and endeavoured to recover the lands, for it is recorded that in 1591 it cost the town £120 to defend its right to this school; and it was in consequence of this suit that the heirs augmented the annual payment from twenty marks to sixteen pounds.

On the vacancy of a mastership of this school, a person of good character, and a member of the Church of England, is presented to the Chancellor of the Diocese by the Vicar and Churchwardens of Lowestoft for the time being, who appoints and licenses the same.

About the year 1670 (when the old school-house belonging to Annott’s foundation was decayed) a dispute seems to have arisen between this parish and the Allens of Somerly, respecting a design formed by that family of uniting Annott’s school with one founded by Sir Thomas Allen. One Mr. Henry Britten formerly master of the school at Lowestoft, who had been applied to by the town for information concerning this affair, answered as follows:

To the Townsmen of Lowestoft,Whereas I was desired to give an answer to divers things proposed concerning the free grammar-school at Lowestoft, during the time I had to do with it; to which I answer as follows: I was presented to it by Mr. Thomas London, the then patron, in the year 1667, and chosen by the general consent of the town, with the minister’s hand and churchwardens, and generally the whole town; and had also a license from the chancellor of Norwich, with his seal, to receive the profits, and did receive, for divers years, the yearly salary of £16 per annum, paid me by the tenants of the school lands at Burrough. But the tenant being a backward man, was always in arrears, and at last died, and left at least £10 unpaid. Thomas Perry, steward for Mr. Thomas Allen, seized what he had, and I was never paid it. But after that they paid me, and I received it from Sir Thomas himself, at the hall, but most what his steward paid me, but they also kept behind in arrears, but told me I should be paid it,only desired me to forbear awhile, because the tenant had not paid them.Some while after, old Sir Thomas[136], erected a school house. When it had been some while built, and stood empty, Mr. Evans petitioned that he might keep a writing school in it, which being granted soon after, Sir Thomas would have me resign, that he might lay the revenues given to the Latin to his school house, designed for English. In refusing to sign, there being about two years in arrears, he told me I should not have one farthing, if I did not resign, and from that time the money was stopped. He desired also to see writings belonging to the school, which he did obtain of some of the townsmen, which he kept, and they could not be found until such time as we came to agreement, which was many years after.Thus it continued many years unpaid. Sometimes I had promise of payment from Sir Thomas Allen, but he was set off again by some or other. I have had many journeys to Norwich, and applied myself to the Bishop and Chancellor, and had promise of them to do me right, but something or other always happened that it was still unpaid. I had counsel about it, and I was told that I might help myself by the Court of Chancery, if the town would join with me, otherwise they would not assist me. I propounded it and found the town cold, and did not care for stirring in it; so that at last I was forced to agree with them, there being £200 due. With much ado I agreed with them to pay me £100, which I did not receive all, till a year or more after I resigned (in 1696.) Mr. Echard, of Somerleyton, was he that agreed it with me, as Sir Thomas Allen’s agent. They required me to give them bond to quit all claim of the school, and also to give in my license. And, thus, I suppose, I have answered what was desired.Hen Britten.Needham Market, Dec. 26, 1701.

To the Townsmen of Lowestoft,

Whereas I was desired to give an answer to divers things proposed concerning the free grammar-school at Lowestoft, during the time I had to do with it; to which I answer as follows: I was presented to it by Mr. Thomas London, the then patron, in the year 1667, and chosen by the general consent of the town, with the minister’s hand and churchwardens, and generally the whole town; and had also a license from the chancellor of Norwich, with his seal, to receive the profits, and did receive, for divers years, the yearly salary of £16 per annum, paid me by the tenants of the school lands at Burrough. But the tenant being a backward man, was always in arrears, and at last died, and left at least £10 unpaid. Thomas Perry, steward for Mr. Thomas Allen, seized what he had, and I was never paid it. But after that they paid me, and I received it from Sir Thomas himself, at the hall, but most what his steward paid me, but they also kept behind in arrears, but told me I should be paid it,only desired me to forbear awhile, because the tenant had not paid them.

Some while after, old Sir Thomas[136], erected a school house. When it had been some while built, and stood empty, Mr. Evans petitioned that he might keep a writing school in it, which being granted soon after, Sir Thomas would have me resign, that he might lay the revenues given to the Latin to his school house, designed for English. In refusing to sign, there being about two years in arrears, he told me I should not have one farthing, if I did not resign, and from that time the money was stopped. He desired also to see writings belonging to the school, which he did obtain of some of the townsmen, which he kept, and they could not be found until such time as we came to agreement, which was many years after.

Thus it continued many years unpaid. Sometimes I had promise of payment from Sir Thomas Allen, but he was set off again by some or other. I have had many journeys to Norwich, and applied myself to the Bishop and Chancellor, and had promise of them to do me right, but something or other always happened that it was still unpaid. I had counsel about it, and I was told that I might help myself by the Court of Chancery, if the town would join with me, otherwise they would not assist me. I propounded it and found the town cold, and did not care for stirring in it; so that at last I was forced to agree with them, there being £200 due. With much ado I agreed with them to pay me £100, which I did not receive all, till a year or more after I resigned (in 1696.) Mr. Echard, of Somerleyton, was he that agreed it with me, as Sir Thomas Allen’s agent. They required me to give them bond to quit all claim of the school, and also to give in my license. And, thus, I suppose, I have answered what was desired.

Hen Britten.

Needham Market, Dec. 26, 1701.

An extract of the last Will and Testament ofJohn Wilde, of Lowestoft, bearing date the 3rd of April, 1699, respecting the donation of James Wilde, his father, of twelve loaves of bread to the poor of this parish to be given every Sunday, after divine service, in Lowestoft church. Also his own donation.

Item. I give, devise, and bequeath unto my said son John and his heirs, for ever, fifteen pounds, of lawful English money; the interest of which said sum of fifteen pounds, with the rent of the messuage, tenement, and pightle, in the occupation of John Middleton, aforesaid, I will shall be for and towards the payment of twelve loaves of bread, given by my father, Mr. James Wilde, deceased, every Sunday, or Lord’s Day, in the year, for ever, to the poor of Lowestoft aforesaid. And for and towards the payment of six penny loaves more, as aforesaid, being my own bequest, to be distributed as aforesaid, in Lowestoft Church, after divine service in the forenoon, every Sunday for ever. But my mind and will is that it shall be in my said son John’s power to choose whether he will give securities to the feoffees of the town lands and churchwardens of the said tenement and pightle, and the interest of the said fifteen pounds, or assign and set over the said tenement and fifteen pounds unto the said feoffees, to remain for ever to the use aforementioned, the one of which, my mind and will is, shall be performed and done by my said son John and his heirs, for ever.

Ann Girling, widow, by will, bearing date 8th of June, 1584, gave certain premises therein mentioned to the poor of Lowestoft, to be given them in firing.

Lowestoft.—At the General Court Baron, with the leet of Corton, holden on Saturday, in Quinquagesima week, in the 27th year of Queen Elizabeth,A.D.1584–5.To this Court came William Wilde and John Lawne, and brought into Court the last will and testament ofAnn Girling, of Lowestoft, widow, in which is contained (amongst other things) as follows:Item. My barn, house, with the tenement adjoining and their appurtenances, being copyhold of this manor of Lowestoft, I give and bequeath unto Thomas Ward, William Wilde, Nathaniel Arnold, John Wilde, John Lawne, John Wells, and their heirs for ever. ONLY to the use of the honest poor of Lowestoft, to be given by the hands of two of them, in wood, so far as the farm of my said barn and tenement, with the appurtenances, will reach yearly. So much yearly detained only as shall keep the same in reparation sufficiently. And they the said feoffees to see conveyance made from them, when there remaineth but two of them, toothers whom they shall think good to the use aforesaid. Or as learned counsel shall best advise; and so from feoffees to feoffees, to the use aforesaid, for ever, as by the said will, bearing date the 8th day of June,A.D.1584, it doth and may more fully and at large appear. And thereupon the said William Wilde and John Lawne, in their own proper persons, and the other feoffees, namely, Nathaniel Arnold, John Wilde, and John Wells, by their attorney, were admitted, etc.

Lowestoft.—At the General Court Baron, with the leet of Corton, holden on Saturday, in Quinquagesima week, in the 27th year of Queen Elizabeth,A.D.1584–5.

To this Court came William Wilde and John Lawne, and brought into Court the last will and testament ofAnn Girling, of Lowestoft, widow, in which is contained (amongst other things) as follows:Item. My barn, house, with the tenement adjoining and their appurtenances, being copyhold of this manor of Lowestoft, I give and bequeath unto Thomas Ward, William Wilde, Nathaniel Arnold, John Wilde, John Lawne, John Wells, and their heirs for ever. ONLY to the use of the honest poor of Lowestoft, to be given by the hands of two of them, in wood, so far as the farm of my said barn and tenement, with the appurtenances, will reach yearly. So much yearly detained only as shall keep the same in reparation sufficiently. And they the said feoffees to see conveyance made from them, when there remaineth but two of them, toothers whom they shall think good to the use aforesaid. Or as learned counsel shall best advise; and so from feoffees to feoffees, to the use aforesaid, for ever, as by the said will, bearing date the 8th day of June,A.D.1584, it doth and may more fully and at large appear. And thereupon the said William Wilde and John Lawne, in their own proper persons, and the other feoffees, namely, Nathaniel Arnold, John Wilde, and John Wells, by their attorney, were admitted, etc.

The premises, named, have many years since fallen into decay; and the ground was, in 1773, the garden of a house situated by the old market, and was let for five shillings per annum.

The abuttalments are thus described in the last admission:—“One tenement decayed, with a barn and garden thereunto belonging, in the west lane, near the old market, between the king’s highway upon the south; and the lands of Margaret Whitehead upon the north; and abutts upon the widow Sterry, towards the west; and upon late Stingales, towards the east. In whom it is now vested, is unknown; but the churchwardens dispose of the rent.”

Thechurch belonging to this parish standing at too great a distance from the general residence of the inhabitants to be frequented by the aged and infirm, it became necessary to erect places for public worship in a near, and consequently, more convenient situation. It is evident that there have been two chapels in the town of Lowestoft, and both of them erected before the Reformation. One of them was situated at the south end of the town, and was called Good-Cross Chapel. This building was destroyed by the sea, without leaving any traces remaining, whereby might be determined either its dimensions or the exact place of its situation. This chapel was not only situated at the south end of the town, but also as far to the east, probably, as the sea would admit of; for it stood between the ocean and the principal highway leading from Lowestoft to Kirkley. The latest account that can be met with, respecting the time when it was standing, is in the reign of Edward VI. These circumstances appear from the following entry in the Court rolls of the manor of Lowestoft:—“At a general Court Baron with the leet, held in the fourth year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, Laurance Robson was admitted to parcel of land of the waste of the Lord with a house thereupon built, called Good-Cross Chapel, containing in length sixty feet, in breadth fifty feet, the west head whereof abutts upon the way leading from Lowestoft to Kirkley, on the surrender of Richard —. At a Court held on Wednesday next after the feast of the nativity of St. John, Thomas Welch was admitted on the surrender of the said Laurance Robson.” The offerings made to the holy cross in this chapel, before the dissolution of the monasteries, amounted to about £9 annually for the benefit of the Vicar of the parish.

The other chapel situated near the middle of the town, and after the dissolution, appears not to have been used for many years as a place of worship, but was suffered to fall much into decay. That part of the building which was next the street was converted into a town-house, for the residence of the poor. At the north-east corner was an entrance; where, by ascending a gallery the chapel was entered behind the town house; and also at this entrance was an isle, which led backwards to the farther end of the chapel. The building seems to have been erected upon arches, as there were cells underneath on each side of the isle; and wherein, probably, in the times of Popery, some persons inhabited; for afterwards, one of these cells was the residence of the sexton of the parish.[138]This appears to have been the state of this antient chapel from the time of the dissolution of the monasteries until the year 1570; when the inhabitants, experiencing many inconveniences in not having a place for public worship near the church, made application to Bishop Parkhurst for a license, in order that divine service might be performed in this chapel, which accordingly was granted; but upon this express condition, that the chapel should be decently ornamented and fitted up for that purpose; that no public prayers should be used there than those prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer; and that neither the sacrament of baptism nor Lord’s supper should ever be administered there on any account whatsoever.

To the Parishioners or Lowestoft.JOHN, by divine permission, Bishop of Norwich. To our beloved in Christ, the parishioners of Lowestoft, in our diocese and jurisdiction, health, grace, and blessing.Know ye, that for the furtherance of devotion, and for the increase of divine worship; and attentively considering and understanding from certain good and weighty reasons to us explained, that the parish church at Lowestoft aforesaid not being so conveniently situated for hearing divine service as could be wished (especially in the winter season,) you are not able to attend. And that you may be enabled to cause public prayers to be celebrated in a proper chapel, in a fit place, and decently ornamented, within the parish of Lowestoft aforesaid, whenever the parishioners of Lowestoft, or the vicar thereof, conceive that divine service may be less commodiously performed in the said church than in the said chapel, we have granted by these presentsLICENSEfor celebrating divine service therein; and we have caused this our license to be irrevocable. But provided nevertheless, That no vicar or curate baptize, or administer the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, or cause it to be administered in the place aforesaid, but in the church of your parish. Nor that they cause, nor that you the parishioners presume, to assist therein, in the celebration of either of the said sacraments, in any manner whatsoever. Inhibiting, moreover That no other public prayers be there used, or suffered to be thus used, than what are prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, set forth by royal authority, and by the consent of the whole Parliament, approved and lawfully enjoined. But if you or any one act contrary hereto, we will, that the authority hereby given to you be void and of no effect. And moreover, you offending in the premises, shall be liable to punishment, lawfully to be inflicted, or imposed at our pleasure.11th November, 1570.

To the Parishioners or Lowestoft.

JOHN, by divine permission, Bishop of Norwich. To our beloved in Christ, the parishioners of Lowestoft, in our diocese and jurisdiction, health, grace, and blessing.

Know ye, that for the furtherance of devotion, and for the increase of divine worship; and attentively considering and understanding from certain good and weighty reasons to us explained, that the parish church at Lowestoft aforesaid not being so conveniently situated for hearing divine service as could be wished (especially in the winter season,) you are not able to attend. And that you may be enabled to cause public prayers to be celebrated in a proper chapel, in a fit place, and decently ornamented, within the parish of Lowestoft aforesaid, whenever the parishioners of Lowestoft, or the vicar thereof, conceive that divine service may be less commodiously performed in the said church than in the said chapel, we have granted by these presentsLICENSEfor celebrating divine service therein; and we have caused this our license to be irrevocable. But provided nevertheless, That no vicar or curate baptize, or administer the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, or cause it to be administered in the place aforesaid, but in the church of your parish. Nor that they cause, nor that you the parishioners presume, to assist therein, in the celebration of either of the said sacraments, in any manner whatsoever. Inhibiting, moreover That no other public prayers be there used, or suffered to be thus used, than what are prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, set forth by royal authority, and by the consent of the whole Parliament, approved and lawfully enjoined. But if you or any one act contrary hereto, we will, that the authority hereby given to you be void and of no effect. And moreover, you offending in the premises, shall be liable to punishment, lawfully to be inflicted, or imposed at our pleasure.

11th November, 1570.

After the granting of this license, divine service appears to have been performed in this chapel until about the year 1674 or 1676; at which time, probably, from its decayed state, it became wholly unfit for that purpose; and the public weekly prayers, after that time, were read in the town chamber, a room over the town house; and in this manner was divine service performed until the year 1698, when the old chapel, from its very ruinous state, was entirely taken down and rebuilt, in consequence of a subscription opened for that purpose. The old chapel was a thatched building.

The re-building of this chapel was undertaken under the care and management of Captain Andrew Leake,[139]and Dr. Joseph Leake: and was brought (together with corn-cross and town chamber) into nearly the same state in which they appeared in 1698 at the expense of about £350.

The ADDRESS to the INHABITANTS of LOWESTOFT, Respecting theRe-buildingofLowestoft Chapel.Forasmuch as I have observed the great danger which may ensue from the weakness and decay of the chapel and town house at Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, with many other inconveniences attending the same. And considering the state of the inhabitants of the town at this time to be a proper season for undertaking and re-building of the said chapel. Being therefore devoted, not only to employ my time in the management and carrying on so good a work, but also to solicit a free and liberal contribution towards effecting the same, which I doubt not but every honest gentleman will promote, by his generous assistance therein; an account of which receipts shall always be shewn to such as desire it, for their satisfaction, by reason of the many complaints of the mismanagement of former collections. And if any person do, or shall suspect my failure in my answering the sum collected, and deposited in my hands, I do hereby promise to engage to give treble security that the monies collected shall be laid out to the use above mentioned.As witness my hand, 7th of June, 1698.Andrew Leake.

The ADDRESS to the INHABITANTS of LOWESTOFT, Respecting theRe-buildingofLowestoft Chapel.

Forasmuch as I have observed the great danger which may ensue from the weakness and decay of the chapel and town house at Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, with many other inconveniences attending the same. And considering the state of the inhabitants of the town at this time to be a proper season for undertaking and re-building of the said chapel. Being therefore devoted, not only to employ my time in the management and carrying on so good a work, but also to solicit a free and liberal contribution towards effecting the same, which I doubt not but every honest gentleman will promote, by his generous assistance therein; an account of which receipts shall always be shewn to such as desire it, for their satisfaction, by reason of the many complaints of the mismanagement of former collections. And if any person do, or shall suspect my failure in my answering the sum collected, and deposited in my hands, I do hereby promise to engage to give treble security that the monies collected shall be laid out to the use above mentioned.

As witness my hand, 7th of June, 1698.

Andrew Leake.

The amount collected by Captain Andrew Leake was £152 0s. 6d.; by Dr. Joseph Peake £193 14s. l¾d. The expenditure was £347 13s. 7d., being £1 18s. 11¼d. in excess of the receipts, and this sum was generously dischargedby Dr. Peake, in the presence of James Wilde, Henry Ward, John Wilde, John Peake, John Barker, jun., John Jex, John Barker, Matthew Arnold, Joseph Smithson. The chapel, although much superior to the former building, was, nevertheless, but an indifferent structure. The pews were of deal, the pulpit and desk stood on the south side; and a gallery on the east, west and north sides. In the middle of the building was hung a vast brass chandelier, the gift of Mr. Martin Brown, formerly a merchant at Rotterdam, but was a native of Lowestoft.

The font belonging to this chapel stood originally on the north side of it, opposite the desk and pulpit. In 1763 it was removed to the south-east end of the chapel; and in 1773, when the north end of the corn cross was inclosed for the purpose of a vestry, the font was again removed to the north-east end of the building. Although baptism was not permitted to be administered in the old chapel, yet it was always performed in this chapel from the time it was erected. Elizabeth, the daughter of Samuel Darkin, was baptised here on the 29th December, 1699, and was the first baptised in the chapel. The font was the gift of Mr. John Jex, merchant of this town. It is not clear from what place the font was brought. The town book, belonging to this parish, says it came from Easton Bavent; but the late John Jex of this town, used to declare that it was brought from Gisleham, and was digged up by accident on the lands in that parish, belonging to the above John Jex, merchant, his father. Probably the latter is the fact, as Mr. Jex had lands at Gisleham, but none at Easton Bavent. However, be that as it will, Mr. Jex was undoubtedly the benefactor.

Prayers were read at this chapel every Wednesday, Friday, and holidays throughout the year. On Sundays, divine service was always performed here in the morning, except when the sacrament was administered, when it was always at the church. Sometimes, in very bad weather, the service was at the chapel on Sundays, both parts of the day.

It is not improbable, but that before the reformation there was another chapel in the town besides those two already mentioned. This chapel (if there ever really was such a place appropriated to sacred purposes) was situated on the west side of High street, about thirty yards to the north of Swan Lane. It was an old Gothic building, faced with black flint; was about sixteen feet in height, and twelve in breadth; and had the appearance of a very antient building. What tends to strengthen the conjecture of its being a place originally designed for sacred uses is, that the Rev. Tanner, who was vicar of the parish (and who published his brother’s “Notitia Monastica,” and consequently was a competent judge of those matters) used to say, that if ever there was a religious house in this town, it was situated opposite to this building. If so, probably this building was the chapel belonging to that religions society. The buildings supposed to have been originally a religious foundation, carry with them, some resemblance of an institution of that nature. They are divided by a passage (which was entered by a large door-space, in the Gothic style), having spacious rooms on each side, whose venerable appearance demonstrates their having been formed neither after a modern nor a mean original.

Inconsequence of there not having been any regular registers of the institutions to church benefices before the year 1299, it is impossible to obtain any information respecting those appointments prior to that period; but after the keeping of those registers, much light has been thrown on the ecclesiastical history of this country: and it is from the assistance derived from these registers that the regular succession of vicars of this parish can be given from the year 1308.

Thomas Scrope, surnamed Bradley, from the town where he was born, descended from a noble family, and very much adorned the honour of his birth by his learning and virtues. He was first a monk of the order of St. Benedict; after that, aspiring to a greater perfection of life, he took upon him the profession and rule of a Dominican; and afterwards he submitted himself to the discipline of the Carmelites. He became Bishop of Dromore, in Ireland, but in the year of his age one hundred, he died in this town of Lestoffe, the 15th January, 1491, the 7th of Henry VII, and was buried in the chancel of Lowestoft Church. On the stone over his burial place was a stone upon which was the effigy of a Bishop in his episcopal habit: his crozier in one hand and his pastoral staff in the other, with several escutcheons of the arms of his family etc., and ornamented with a border, all in brass; but, scarce any remains of them are now to be seen, and the matrices wherein they were placed are almost empty.

In 1540 John Blomewyle, was on the presentation of Thomas Godsalve, Esq., instituted vicar. He resigned in 1555, in the beginning of the reign of Queen Mary. Probably he could not conform to the alterations in religious matters made by the Queen at that time; or possibly he might be a married man, and therefore under the necessity of resigning, to prevent being ejected, as was the misfortune of a great number of the clergy in that unhappy reign.

The Rev. Jacob Rous appears to have been minister of this parish during the whole usurpation of Oliver Cromwell. He was vicar, on June 12, 1644, when Francis Jessope was sent with a commission from the Earl of Manchester to disrobe the grave stones of the brasses that had the inscription “Orate pro anima, etc.”

The Rev. Whiston, on the 19th August, 1702, resigned Lowestoft, to succeed Sir Isaac Newton in the mathematical professorship, at Cambridge. He was a divine of great abilities and uncommon learning. In 1694 he was appointed chaplain to Dr. Moor, Bishop of Norwich, which he held till 1698, when the Bishop presented him with the living of Lowestoft with Kessingland. A parish (Mr. Whiston said) of 2,000 souls, but not worth more than £120 a year clear. The care of souls was rightly esteemed by him as a concern of the highest importance; he, therefore, set himself sincerely and in good earnest to that great work, discharging the several duties of a parish priest with distinguished piety and unwearied diligence. Notwithstanding that his income was so small, he kept a curate, allowing him £30 a year, and the curate made £30 a year more by teaching a small school. Mr. Whiston set up public prayers morning and evening, everyday, at the chapel within the town. He constantly preached twice on Sundays; and at the summer season, at least, had a catechetic lecture at the chapel in the evening, designed more for the benefit of the adult than for the children. To these lectures came many dissenters. This may easily be accounted for when it is considered that the noted Mr. Emlyn had officiated as minister to the Dissenters of the town eighteen months, about ten years before. Mr. Emlyn had adopted the Arian principles, and probably had introduced the same sentiments among many of his hearers, who consequently, were pre-disposed to attend lectures that were given by a minister of the establishment whoentertained opinions similar to those of Mr. Emlyn, as was the case with Mr. Whiston. There appears to have been the most intimate friendship between these two divines: for when Mr. Whiston, in 1715, held a weekly meeting for promoting primitive Christianity, the third chairman of those meetings was Mr. Emlyn. Mr. Whiston resigned the livings in 1702, and being, by the interest of his friend, Sir Isaac Newton, appointed to succeed him in the mathematical chair at Cambridge, he went and resided in that university; but continuing to retain and propogate Arian principles, he was for his heterodox opinions expelled the university on the 30th October, 1710. In 1747 he left the communion of the Church of England, and joined the Baptists. After engaging in various schemes, and experiencing many vicissitudes of fortune, he died on the 22nd August, 1752, in London, after only a week’s illness. His body was interred at Lyndon, near Stamford, Lincolnshire. The inscription placed over him says he died in the 85th year of his age. Endued with an excellent genius, and indefatigable in labour and study, he became learned in divinity, antient history, chronology, philosophy and mathematics.

Jacob Smith, vicar in 1702, was a native of Scotland, and for conscientiously refusing to take the oaths of King William, he was (with a large family) reduced to all the hardships and miseries of an obscure and necessitous life; but on the resignation of Mr. Whiston, Bishop Moor presented him to Lowestoft. He was buried in the churchyard, close by the north side of the chancel, where a tomb was erected to his memory. And tradition reports that he was the first person ever buried on that side of the church. There was formerly a great partiality respecting burying on the south and east sides of the churchyard at Lowestoft. Many years after the interment of Jacob Smith there was not more than two or three graves on the north side of the church, though subsequently it became as general to inter on one side as on the other. This partiality may, perhaps, at first, have partly arisen from the antient custom of praying for the dead; for as the usual approach to this and many other churches is by the south, it was natural for burials to be on that side, that those who were going to divine service, might, in their way, by the sight of the graves of their friends, be put in mind to offer up a prayer for the welfare of their souls; and even now, since the custom of praying for the dead is abolished, the same obvious situation of graves may excite some tender recollection in those who view them, and silently implore the passing tribute of a sigh.

The Rev. John Tanner, who was Vicar of Lowestoft many years, died in 1759; he was precentor of the Cathedral of Asaph, Rector of Kessingland, and also commissary and official to the arch-deaconry of Suffolk, (in 1725), which offices he resigned as soon as the infirmities of age rendered him incapable of performing them with that care and exactness he had always shewn in their discharge. Among his many antient acts of charity may be mentioned (exclusive of the active part which he took in the re-building of Kirkley church) his purchasing the impropriation of Lowestoft, for the benefit of his successors; his expending a large sum of money in repairing and beautifying the chancel; and also setting the first example in new-pewing the church. He was the third son of the Rev. Thomas Tanner, vicar of Market Leavington, Wiltshire; was educated at Queen’s College, Oxford; and obtained his preferment through the interest of his brother, Thomas Tanner, who was many years Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich.

Rev. J. Arrow who was instituted to the vicarage of Lowestoft in 1760, was born in London in 1733; was educated at Westminister school, and admitted of Trinity College, Cambridge; was formerly a chaplain to the Royal Navy, which he exchanged for Lowestoft, with Dr. Greet, chaplain to Dr. Hayter, Bishop of Norwich, who had presented him to the same, but was not instituted. The Rev. Arrow died the 22nd of June 1789, aged 55 years, and was buried in the chancel of Lowestoft church. He was a person of a very regular life and conversation; zealous in promoting the interest and welfare of the church; and so very conscientious in discharging the duties of his function, that although very ill, yet he preached twice in the last twenty-four hours before he expired.

The Rev. Robert Potter, prebendary of Norwich, was well known in the literary world as the learned and ingenious translator of the Aschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

Thetown of Lowestoft has been much distinguished in religious concerns, for its invoilable attachment to the establishment of the Church of England, as in civil affairs, for its unshaken loyalty to its sovereign. Nevertheless, it is not without its sectaries, which, at different times, have arisen in the town; the principal of which sectaries is that society denominated Independents or Congregational Dissenters. At what time it was that this religious sect first began to make its appearance in Lowestoft is uncertain. Previous to the year 1689, when the learned Mr. Emlyn came to reside in the town, and commenced as minister to the Congregational dissenters, it was but an inconsiderable body, destitute of a regular pastor, and also of a decent structure for the purpose of religious exercises.[143]The congregation of Protestant dissenters at Lowestoft might be considered also, at that time, as a kind of dependent assembly on the Dissenting congregation at Yarmouth; as it was customary for the members belonging to the former congregation to repair to that at Yarmouth at the usual seasons of receiving the holy communion, and was much in the same state of dependence on that society as a chapel-of-ease is on the mother church.

At this early period the Dissenters of Lowestoft had no other building for the public exercise of religion than a barn situate in a lane called Blue Anchor lane, opposite Rant’s score; and they continued in this obscure situation till the year 1695, when a decent structure was erected for religious uses. Probably the Society was much increased after the year 1689, when so distinguished a character as Mr. Emlyn became their minister, and in consequence thereof might be enabled to erect this building. This meeting house was erected in 1695 upon a small piece of ground given for that purpose by Mr. James Ward of this town. The eminent Mr. Emlyn was born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 22, 1663. In August, 1674, he was put to a boarding school at Walcot, near Folkingham, where he continued four years, and on Sundays was the constant auditor of the noted Mr. Brocklesby, the then incumbent of that parish. Mr. Emlyn’s parents were of the established church, and were very intimate with the very learned and worthy Dr. Cumberland, then minister at Stamford, and afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, but being inclined to the Puritans, they choose to educate their son among that sect; for this purpose he was sent, for academical education, in 1678, to Sulby, near Welford, in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years. In 1679 he went to Cambridge; and in 1682 was admitted of Emanuel College, but, returned again to Sulby; and in the same year he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s academy, first at Islington, then at Clapham, and afterwards at Battersea. He made his first essay as a preacher December 19, 1682, at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting house, near Cripplegate. In 1683 he was chaplain to the Countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but resided then in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, and the year following accompanied the family to Belfast. While in this station he made a journey to Dublin, and during his continuance in that city, preached once before that congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. JosephBoyce were at that time pastors, in a manner so acceptable to the audience, as gave occasion for that people afterwards to invite him to be their minister. A favourable opportunity for this purpose offered shortly after; for Mr. Williams having quitted the congregation at Dublin, Mr. Boyce made some overtures to Mr. Emlyn relative to his succeeding him, which he declined accepting. Mr. Emlyn still continued his station as chaplain in this family; but in 1688, when the disturbances in Ireland occasioned his patron’s family to leave that Kingdom, he returned to London. On his arrival at that place, and being out of employment, he was invited by Sir Robert Rich, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, to his house at Rose Hall, near Beccles, and was by him prevailed upon to officiate as Minister to the Dissenting congregation at Lowestoft; which place he supplied about a year and a half, but refused the invitation of being their pastor; for as he disapproved of Ministers changing and shitting from one place to another, so he had determined not to accept any pastoral care but where he thought he should settle, and purposed to continue. It was during his residence at Lowestoft, that, reading Dr. Sherlock’s piece on the Trinity, he first began to entertain some scruples concerning the received doctrine in that point of faith. Here also he contracted a close and intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Manning, a Nonconformist Minister at Peasanhall, and corresponded with him during Mr. Manning’s life. As both were of an inquisitive temper, they frequently conferred together on the highest mysteries of religion; and Dr. Sherlock’s book on the Trinity became a stumbling block to both. Manning even became a Socinian, and strove hard to bring his friend into those opinions, but Mr. Emlyn could never be made to doubt either of the pre-existence of our Saviour, as the Logos, or that God created the material world by him.

King James having fled into France, and Ireland being nearly reduced by King William, the affairs of that Kingdom began to be in a more settled state, and the dissenting congregations assembled in larger numbers. This induced Mr. Boyce to renew his application to Mr. Emlyn, to accept, jointly, with himself, the pastoral care of his congregation at Dublin; and to effect his purpose, wrote him a very pressing letter, and sent it to Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, minister at Salter’s Hall, London, who transmitted it enclosed in one from himself, to Mr. Emlyn, at Lowestoft.

Mr. Emlyn being so strongly solicited to accept the office of assistant pastor to the congregation at Dublin, complied with the invitation, and accordingly arrived in Dublin in May, 1691, and continued there until 1702, when his troubles began; for Dr. Duncan Cummins, a physician in that city, suspecting him of heterodox notions, about the Trinity, put Mr. Boyce first upon the enquiry, and went afterwards with him to Mr. Emlyn’s house, where the Unitarian freely confessed his belief “That God the Father of Jesus Christ, is above the Supreme Being, and superior in excellency and authority to his Son, who derives all from him.” Protesting, however, that he had no design to cause strife among them, he offered to leave the congregation peaceably. But, Mr. Boyce, not willing to take such a weighty matter on himself, brought before the meeting of the Dublin ministers; in consequence of which, Mr. Emlyn was immediately prohibited from preaching, and in a few days obliged to withdraw into England. But some zealous Dissenters, having resolved to prosecute him with the utmost rigour, they obtained a special warrant from the Lord Chief Justice to seize him and his books, and went with the keeper of Newgate to execute it upon him. The Chief Justice refused at first to take bail, but at length accepted of a recognizance, from two sufficient persons, of £800 for his appearance. On his trial he was found guilty. He was moved to retract, which he absolutely refused; and was therefore sentenced to suffer a year’s imprisonment, to pay a fine of £1,000 to the Queen, to live in prison till it was paid, and to find security for his good behaviour during life; telling him that the pillory was the punishment due, but because he was a man of letters it was not inflicted. After this he was led round the four Courts to be exposed, with a paper on his breast, signifying his crime. The fine was afterwards mitigated to £70, and this, together with £20, claimed by the Primate, as the Queen’s Almoner, was paid. Thus, after an imprisonment from the 14th of June, 1703, to the 21st July, 1705, and on giving securityfor his good behaviour, during life, he obtained his discharge. Soon after Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a few friends gathered a small congregation, to whom he preached once every Sunday; this liberty gave great offence to several clergymen of the Established Church, and complaint thereof was made to Archbishop Jenison; but His Grace, being fully acquainted with the proceedings against him in Dublin, and his accusers not alleging that Mr. Emlyn made the controverted points the subject of his sermons, on the account of his character, was not inclined to molest him. This congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who supported it, and their preacher retired into silence and obscurity, and died July 30th, 1741. Mr. Emlyn was a man of a lively and cheerful temper, of strong parts, and clear way of thinking, of great learning, and abounding in all religious graces; he was a popular and much admired preacher, for he not only had a portly presence, a strong clear voice, and a graceful delivery, but his discourses were, for the most part, rational and persuasive, always concluding somewhat serious and pathetical. He wrote several tracts, which, with his sermons on practical subjects, were collected and printed, in 1754, in three volumes, octavo, to which are prefixed Memoirs of his Life and Writings.

During Mr. Emlyn’s residence in Lowestoft, he cultivated the most friendly intercourse with the Rev. Hudson, at that time vicar of the parish; accompanying him in collecting public charities, and would frequently himself with several of his society attend the service of the church, by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the Establishment and the Dissenters. Nevertheless, his conduct in this respect was not approved altogether by those of his own community. Mr. Emlyn was also intimately acquainted with the Rev. Whiston, vicar of Lowestoft, and a successor of Mr. Hudson; and he was also particularly intimate with Dr. Samuel Clarke, who entertained nearly the same sentiments in religion as Mr. Emlyn and Mr. Whiston.

It is a little difficult to ascertain precisely who the ministers were that officiated at Lowestoft from the departure of Mr. Emlyn to the year 1698. There is an account of one Mr. Manning, who was an occasional preacher in the latter end of the reign of Charles II, or in the time of his brother James; but who this person was, whether he was an ejected minister (as there were several of that name in this country) or some other minister of the name of Manning, does not appear. It is not improbable that he was the Rev. Manning, of Peasanhall, previously mentioned, who was the intimate friend of Mr. Emlyn. Be this as it may, authentic accounts say that the Rev. Samuel Baxter, the eldest son of an ejected minister of Lancashire, settled here as minister to the Dissenters about the year 1698. He left the congregation about the year 1703, and removed to Ipswich. He was succeeded by the Rev. Henry Ward, who left Lowestoft about midsummer, 1707, and settled at Woodbridge, where he died at the close of the year 1734. Mr. Ward was succeeded at Lowestoft by Mr. Samuel Say, in 1707 or 1708. Mr. Say was born in the year 1675, and was the second son of Mr. Giles Say, minister of St. Michael’s parish, in the town of Southampton, but rejected thence by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. But after the grant of liberty of conscience, in the reign of James II, he was chosen pastor of a Dissenting congregation at Guestwick, in Norfolk, where he continued till his death, April 7th, 1692. Mr. Samuel Say, the son, received his first education at Southwark; and having discovered when he was but a young man, a strong inclination to the ministry, his father accordingly took care to have him educated in the best manner he could for that purpose, from his earliest years; and about the year 1692 he entered as a pupil the Rev. Rowe’s academy at London, where he had for his fellow students Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Isaac Watts, Mr. John Hughes, and Mr. Josiah Hort, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam. When he had finished his studies, he became chaplain to Thomas Scott, Esq., of Liminge, in Kent, a gentleman eminent for piety and goodness. Mr. Say continued in this family three years, and was well esteemed by all for his Christian behaviour and exemplary conversation. From thence he removed to Andover, in Hampshire; but in a short time came to Yarmouth, in Norfolk, and soon after that became a constant preacher at Lowestoft. Here he continued eighteen years, labouringin word and doctrine; but not being able all the time to bring the people among whom he ministered into a regular church order, he never settled with them as their pastor. During the residence of Mr. Say, at Lowestoft, the Dissenters had not the sacrament administered here; but after that Mr. Say had preached at Lowestoft in the afternoon, on Sundays, he would ride to Yarmouth, attended by such of the congregation as were so disposed, and there he administered it. Mr. Say left Lowestoft in 1725, being invited to a co-pastorship with the Rev. Samuel Baxter, of Ipswich, where he remained nine years; and from thence was called to succeed Dr. Edmund Calamy, then lately deceased, in the pastorship of the Church of Protestant Dissenters in Westminister. He removed thither in 1734, and continued in his pastoral relation till April 12th, 1743; where, after a week’s illness of a mortification in his bowels he died at his house in St. James’ street, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. He was a very ingenious and sensible man; had great candour and good breeding, without stiffness and formality; an open countenance, and a temper always communicative; he was a tender husband, an indulgent father, and of a most benevolent disposition, ever ready to do good, and relieve the wants of the distressed to the utmost extent of his abilities. He was well versed in astronomy and natural philosophy. This is evident from an astronomical and meteorological journal kept by Mr. Say from the year 1713 to 1734; wherein, among the various occurrences related by him, as an account of the great consternation excited among the inhabitants of Lowestoft at what is calledthe firstappearance of the Aurora Borealis. Mr. Say writes: “The market this day is full of discourse concerning a great and unusual light, from seven to twelve last night, seen in Lowestoft, Beccles, and at sea. Women rose out of their beds through fear, others screamed, ships came to anchor fearing an unusual tempest, so dreadfully the sky opened; the angry clouds also seemed, in the imagination of the superstitious beholder, to flash one against another. This curious phenomenon had never been seen either in England or foreign countries from 1621 to 1707, and then only in a small degree; therefore the splendour with which this appeared attracted universal attention. The vulgar viewed it with consternation, and considered it as marking the introduction of a foreign race of princes into this country; so strangely do people perplex and bewilder themselves when they depart from true philosophy, which never fails both to ennoble and enlighten the human mind.” He had also a taste for music and poetry, and was a good critic and master of the classics. Soon after his death a thin quarto volume of his poems with two essays in prose “On the Harmony, Variety, and Power of Numbers,” written at the request of Mr. Richardson, the painter, were published for the benefit of his only daughter, who married the Rev. Mr. Toms, a Dissenting Minister at Hadleigh, Suffolk. The poems are not destitute of merit, but the two essays have been much admired by persons of taste and judgment.

In the year 1725 Mr. Say was succeeded by the Rev. Whittick, who removed to Kingston-on-Thames in 1733. It was during the ministry of Mr. Whittick, that the dissenting congregation at Lowestoft became a perfectly distinct body, and dissolved the connection which hitherto had subsisted with Yarmouth, Mr. Whittick declaring that unless they became a separate body, distinct from any other congregation, he would leave them. In 1733 Mr. Whittick was succeeded by the ingenious Mr. Thomas Scott, son of a Dissenting minister at Norwich. Mr. Scott, the grandfather of Mr. Thomas Scott, was an eminent merchant in London. He had two wives. By his first wife he had the above-mentioned Mr. Scott, Dissenting minister at Norwich, who had (besides other children) two sons of considerable note in the learned world, namely Mr. Thomas Scott, who was minister at Lowestoft, and Dr. Joseph Nicoll Scott, who was first a Dissenting minister, and published two volumes of sermons; but afterwards practised physic in London, and was well-known by the hand he had in several ingenious and useful publications. He was an assistant to his father in the congregation at Norwich; but embracing the Arian principles, (received there only by a few at that time) his father was under the painful necessity of expelling him from that society. By his second wife he had Dr. Daniel Scott, author of the Appendix to H. Stephens’s Greek Lexicon, in two volumes, folio, dedicated to ArchbishopSecker and Bishop Butler—the New Version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, with critical notes, etc., a learned and accurate performance—and an Essay towards a Demonstration of the Scripture Trinity. The design of this last work is to prove that the common notion of the doctrine of the Trinity (or the Athanasian scheme) is erroneous. He had the highest esteem for Dr. Doddridge, notwithstanding he differed so much from him respecting the Trinity; and had such a particular regard for that author’s Treatise on the Rise and Progress of Religion, that he made it a constant travelling companion. And Dr. Doddridge seems to have held Dr. Scott with equal estimation; for in his Family Expositor he called him the learned, ingenious, candid, and accurate Dr. D. Scott. Mr. Thomas Scott, minister at Lowestoft, in the early part of his life, kept a small boarding school (for ten scholars only) at Wortwell, near Harleston, and used to preach at the meeting house at Harleston once every month. From Wortwell Mr. Scott removed to Lowestoft, where he continued five years; but the keenness of the air being too severe for the tenderness of his constitution, he was under the necessity of leaving Lowestoft about the year 1738, and removed to Ipswich.[147]

After Mr. Scott’s removal to Ipswich, he became well known to the learned world by several very ingenious publications, particularly by his poetic translation of the book of Job, with critical notes, and some other poetical pieces. But finding, during his residence at Ipswich, the infirmities of age coming on him very hastily, and rendering him incapable of discharging the duties of his function with that care and exactness which he had always observed with the most scrupulous attention, he quitted that town in 1774, and retired to a small congregation at Hepton, in the neighbourhood of Norwich, where he died about two years after. Mr. Scott was succeeded in the year 1738 by Mr. Alderson, who continued pastor till his death, which happened in 1760. Mr. Alderson having a large family, and the stipend at Lowestoft being small, Mr. Elisha Barlow, a dissenter and eminent merchant of the town, was so far influenced by the considerations as to bequeath by will to the dissenting congregation at Lowestoft a considerable estate in the adjoining parish of Mutford, as an augmentation of the salary of the minister; but on this condition, nevertheless, that if Mr. Alderson was not continued pastor, the said estate should devolve to him and to his heirs for ever. In pursuance of this obligation, it was agreed on by the whole body of Dissenters at Lowestoft (in consequence of their great esteem for Mr. Alderson) to draw up an instrument, in which they formally expelled him as pastor, in order to give him a legal claim to the estate and afterwards re-chose him into his former pastoral office. But notwithstanding all these endeavours on the part of the congregation to render Mr. Alderson so essential a service, they were soon after entirely frustrated by the heirs at law of Mr. Barlow, who disputed the legality of the donation on the Mortmain Act, and commenced a suit in Chancery for recovering the estate. The result of this suit was, that Mr. Alderson was obliged to relinquish all future claims whatsoever to the same. This misfortune was an irreparable loss to Mr. Alderson. The anxiety which he suffered during the contest greatly impaired his health and shortened his days; for soon after, as, on the Lord’s day, he was preaching to his congregation, he was suddenly taken ill, was obliged to be led home, and died in a short time. Mr. Alderson was a worthy, well-disposed man, of an exceedingly affable and peaceable disposition, much esteemed by the whole circle of his acquaintance; and as he lived much respected, so he died universally lamented.

The Dissenting congregation at Lowestoft appears to have been but very small before the year 1689, when Mr. Emlyn became their officiating minister; after this period they became a more numerous body, and continued increasing till the year 1735, when their number was become very considerable; after that year they appear to have been in a decreasing state, and declined very fast, especially since the death of Mr. Alderson; for, according to an account taken in 1776, the number amounted to only 35, that could be properly called Independents and Congregational Dissenters. The number of Dissenting families in 1780 to 1790 (exclusive of the Methodists) was under twenty, but the congregation usually consisted of 150 and 200 persons.

While the law suit was pending, and for a short time after the death of Mr. Alderson, the congregation at Lowestoft was under the care of the Rev. Nasmith. After Mr. Nasmith came Mr. Gardner. From 1760 to 1785 about fifteen ministers had charge of the Dissenting congregation.

A digression may be interesting respecting an extraordinary trial, concerning two poor old widows belonging to Lowestoft who were tried, condemned, and executed on a charge of witch-craft.

In the year 1663 Mr. Samuel Pacey, an eminent Dissenter at Lowestoft, commenced a prosecution against two widows, on a suspicion of witchcraft. Mr. Pacey had conceived an opinion that two of his daughters, Elizabeth and Deborah, respectively eleven and nine years of age, were bewitched; and that these two women, whose names were Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, were the cause of the misfortune. In consequence of this suspicion, he caused Amy Duny to be set in the stocks; but not thinking this a sufficient punishment, he caused both women to be apprehended; and at the ensuing Lent assizes, held at Bury, the 10th March, 1664, before Sir Matthew Hale, Knt., Lord Chief Baron of his Majesty’s Court of Exchequer, they were severally indicted for bewitching (amongst others) the said Elizabeth and Deborah Pacey; and being arraigned on the said indictment, pleaded not guilty; but being afterwards, after a long course of evidence, found guilty, they were thereupon, on Thursday, March 13th, sentenced to die for the same, and accordingly, on Monday, the 17th of March following, they were executed.

Dr. Hutchinson, in his historical essay concerning witchcraft, has given many pertinent observations respecting this very extraordinary trial; intending thereby to expose its absurdity, and to detect and ridicule the evidence on which the sentence was founded. To give a detail of every ridiculous circumstance that was urged in the course of the evidence, would be both irksome and disgusting; but two of the most material points may be related, which were adjudged to have the most weight, and principally to affect the cause then before the Court; adding thereto the remarks made thereupon by Mr. Hutchinson.

In the course of the trial it was deposed by Samuel Pacey, that his younger daughter Deborah, was suddenly taken ill with a lameness in her legs, was seized with violent fits, and felt the most excruciating pains in her stomach, like the pricking of pins, which caused her to shriek in an alarming manner; and also, that his daughter Elizabeth was afflicted in the same manner, and that they could not open their mouths wide enough for respiration, sufficient to preserve life, without the help of a tap. But Dr. Hutchinson says, there was no necessity for putting taps in the children’s mouths when a sufficient quantity of air to preserve life could have been drawn through their nostrils. John Soam, of Lowestoft, deposed, that, in harvest time, as he was going into the field to load, one of the carts wrenched the window off Rose Cullender’s house, whereupon she came out in a great rage, and threatened him for having done wrong. The consequence whereof was, that the cart was overturned twice that day; and the last time of loading it, as they brought it through the gate which led out of the field into the town, the cart stuck so fast in the gate’s head that they could not possibly get it through, but were obliged to cut down the post of the gate, to make the cart pass through, although they did not perceive that the cart did of either side touch the gate-posts. Dr. Hutchinson says, very true, Rose Cullender might well be in a passion when they ran the cart against her house and damaged it; and an unruly horse or a careless driver might easily overturn a cart two or three times a day; and if the cart stuck so fast in the gate’s head so as they could not get it through (though it did not touch the gate-post as they could perceive), what made them cut the post down? These depositions shew the kind of evidence it was on which these poor unfortunate women were condemned and executed, the ludicrous manner in which Dr. Hutchinson has treated it, as well as the contemptible light in which it was regarded by all the wise and discerning part of mankind. But exclusive of the evidence, they had also recourse, during the trial, to art and stratagem; for they caused one of Mr. Pacey’s daughters to be blindfolded and to be touched by one of the supposed witches, in order to discover what effect it would produce; and on using this experiment, the girl fell into a violent rage, and gave the Court what they deemedthe most evident demonstration of the criminality of the prisoners. Nevertheless, Mr. Sergeant Keeling seemed so much dissatisfied with this proof, that he thought it not sufficient to convict the prisoners; and therefore Sir Matthew Hale privately desired the Lord Cornwallis, and Mr. Sergeant Keeling to try the experiment in another place, and by a different person; but notwithstanding they perceived the same effect, yet these gentlemen, on their return into Court, declared, that from what they had discovered, it was, in their opinion, that the whole of the charge was groundless, and without any foundation. This was a favourable circumstance in behalf of the prisoners, as it tended to acquit them, and it actually stopped the proceedings of the Court a considerable time. At last, however, it was resolved to take the opinion of Dr. Brown, a physician from Norwich, and who was desired by the Court to give his sentiments concerning the prisoners, whether he really thought they were witches or not. The doctor’s evidence amounted to this: “That he was clearly of opinion that the two girls were really bewitched; for that in Denmark there had been lately a great discovery of witches, and from some books that had been published in that kingdom, it appears that the witches there had used the same methods of afflicting persons as had been practised by the prisoners.” This evidence of Dr. Brown turned the scale against these unfortunate women, and appears to have been decisive.

The eyes of all the sensible and inquisitive part of the nation were fixed on this very extraordinary trial, and waited with impatience the decision of the Court. They were full of expectations that the point would be so fully discussed as finally to determine it, and leave no room for posterity to engage in any farther controversy concerning these notions. But this was reserved for a more enlightened age; for it appears that nothing but perplexity and confusion ensued thereupon. The judge himself was so far from being satisfied with the evidence, that, on the contrary, he was extremely doubtful concerning it; and was under such distressing fears and apprehensions during the trial, and proceeded with such extreme caution therein, that he forebore summing up the evidence, but left it to the jury, with prayers to God to direct their hearts in so weighty a matter. Accordingly the jury, after withdrawing about half-an-hour, returned with their verdict, which pronounced the prisoners guilty. After this the judge gave the law its course, pronounced sentence of death upon them, and they were executed very soon after.

Thus were these two unfortunate widows, whose only misfortune was either the poverty of their circumstances, the deformity of their persons, or the weakness of their understandings, sacrificed to the superstition of the age, the insufficiency of the evidence, and the ignorance and credulity of the jury.

Possibly it may be admitted, as some extenuation of the absurdity of this prosecution, to remember that it was undertaken in an age in which the notion of witchcraft was generally received;thatnot only among the illiterate and vulgar, but even amongst those who were in the highest estimation for rank, piety, and learning.

It was in consequence of this ridiculous notion that one Matthew Hopkins, of Manningtree, in Essex, together with some others, were commissioned by Parliament in 1664, and the two following years, to perform a circuit, in order to discover witches. By virtue of this commission they went from town to town through many parts of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Huntingdonshire, for the purpose of detecting them; and caused sixteen to be hanged at Yarmouth, forty at Bury, and also as many more in different parts of the country as amounted in the whole to nearly one hundred persons. It is to this absurd commission that Butler alludes in Hudebras, when he says:

Hath not this present ParliamentA ledger to the devil sent,Fully empow’d to treat about,Finding revolted witches out?And has he not within a yearHang’d three score of them in a shire?

This Hopkins used to call himself Witchfinder General, and had twenty shillings allowed him for every town he visited. He used many arts to extort confession from suspected persons, and when they failed he had recourseto swimming them; which was done by tying their thumbs and toes across one another, and then throwing them into the water. Thus he went on searching and swimming the poor creatures, till some gentleman, out of indignation at the barbarity of it, took him and tied his own thumbs and toes as he used to tie others, and when he was put into the water he himself swam as others had done before him. This method soon cleared the country of him, and it was a great pity the experiment was not thought of sooner.

Returning from the digression it may be noted that another religious sect which appeared in Lowestoft is the Methodists. The society first made its appearance here in the year 1761; and was introduced by that great leader of the sect, the Rev. John Wesley, and has continued. In the year 1776 their number was increased to about fifty; they purchased a piece of ground on the north side of Frary lane, and soon after erected a meeting house there, which was opened on the 19th November, 1776, by Mr. John Wesley, who came to Lowestoft for that purpose.

Back to Index Next