Lowestoft Population Statistics 1561-1750

The information which follows is based mainly on a family reconstitution of the town’s parish registers carried out during the mid-1980s on behalf of the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure (CAMPOP). Along with that of twenty-five other English parishes, the Lowestoft material was used to produce the organisation’s master-work on the country’s demographic structure entitled English Population History From Family Reconstitution 1580-1837(1997). The co-authors were A.E. Wrigley, R.S. Davies, J.E. Oeppen and R.S. Schofield. The parish registers (Norfolk Record Office, PD 589/1, 2, 3 & 4), at the time of study, were kept in the St. Margaret’s Church safe and later moved to the Norfolk Record Office (Norwich Diocese repository) for safe-keeping under the Parochial Measures Act. Scrutiny of them was backed up by use of F. A. Crisp’s early 20th century printed transcripts of the material. Reconstitution of the registers took eighteen months to carry out and provided a fascinating insight into the town’s demographic, social and economic structure.

Lowestoft Marriage and Re-marriage Data

In total, 1,870 marriages were recorded in St. Margaret’s Church between 1561 and 1730. Of these, 144 (8%) were the unions of people where one partner or both had their origins outside the parish and did not settle there. A further 301 (16%) were those between couples identifiable as townspeople, but ones who did not stay in Lowestoft after their marriages had been conducted. Thus, 445 (24%) of all marriages which are recorded for the 169 years cited did not lead to family units being created in town.

Of the 1,425 marriages which are left, once the 445 referred to above are eliminated, a further total of 317 unions (22%) produced no children at all, with nine of these being cases where the wife died soon after the marriage had taken place and another nine being instances where she was past child-bearing age when wed. With these eighteen factored in, this leaves 299 marriages out of the 3i7 where, in theory, children could have been born - but were not. Thus, the 1,108 fertile unions of the people who married in Lowestoft and who lived there for at least some of their time together represents 78% of the total of the 1,425 marriages solemnised.

Pre-nuptial pregnancy is detectable, with 127 brides being at varying stages of the condition and a further thirty-eight who had possibly conceived by the time they were married. The former represents 9% of the 1,425 marriage total, while the latter is 3% - combining to reach a figure of 12% - which is nowhere near the 20%, or so, sometimes found cited for pregnant brides in other communities of Pre-Industrial England.

The places of origin of marriage partners from outside the town is often revealed in the parish registers. A majority (83%) of the 162 people named emanated from within a fifteen-mile radius of Lowestoft, thereby confirming what other historians have found in other places - including the late Nesta Evans who showed a similar pattern in her work Beccles Rediscovered (1984), pp. 76-7. Mainly, it was a case of bridegrooms originating from outside Lowestoft and marrying local women (129 examples), but there are also examples where local men married women from outside (thirty-three cases). Of the eighty-eight outside partners from Suffolk (sixty-six men and twenty-two women) seventy-eight lived in communities within a fifteen-mile radius of the town (sixty men snd eighteen women) - and forty of that seventy-eight (thirty-two men and eight women) within five miles. It was not geographically possible for any Norfolk community to lie within a five mile radius of Lowestoft, but of the forty-six outside partners from that county (thirty-five men and eleven women) thirty originated from places within a ten-mile distance (twenty-three men and seven women) - and, of that thirty, twenty-five came from Great Yarmouth (nineteen men and six women). 

Maritime links of some kind seem to be in evidence regarding the connection with Yarmouth and probably also with four other towns (Southwold, Ipswich, Felixstowe and King’s Lynn). In addition to these places, there were also men (one in each case) from Colchester, Eltham, London and Newcastle who married in town between 1561 and 1600, with three of them (Eltham excepted) again having possible maritime associations. Then there were two further marriages with men from London and Hereford between 1676 and 1700 and from Southwark between 1701 and 1730. As well as these far-off places, twenty sojourners and one stranger (to use the register’s description) also married Lowestoft women between 1701 and 1730, but no parish of origin is given for any of them. The term “sojourner” tended to be applied to temporary residents of a community, usually doing some kind of work there before moving on.

As well as the 1,870 marriages which took place in St. Margaret’s Church, there were another 2,163 marital partnerships which manifest themselves in the records mainly by children’s baptismal and burial entries. These unions are those of either the marriages of Lowestoft’s transient population or the ones contracted by townspeople with partners from outside the parish, which led to the ceremony being conducted elsewhere. There were 354 of the latter identified, with the venues largely unknown. Scrutiny of the parish register of Corton (just to the north of Lowestoft) between 1580 and 1728, revealed only three or four marriages of Lowestoft people taking place there, while the records of Pakefield (to the south) showed eight for the period 1697-1726. Even with another fifteen parishes being within a five-mile radius of Lowestoft (if the two communities observed provide any kind of guidelines), it is doubtful whether the 354 marriages cited could have been accommodated within this area.

It has been observed that there was a restricted geographical range for the lower orders of society within which to choose marriage partners, and a much greater choice for those higher up the social scale. But, no specific distances are given. It may have been the case that even lesser people travelled further to find spouses than has been presumed - especially men. Indeed, in the case of labourers and servants, who tended to move from place to place at comparatively short intervals of time as part of their employment pattern, relationships could well have been established in previous places of work.

The great majority of the 354 marriages where identifiable inhabitants of Lowestoft married someone from outside the parish are those of men (339 cases), with those of women constituting a small minority (fifteen cases). A number of the people are recognisable as being members of merchant families, but there are also those who belonged to the maritime and crafts sections of the local population - as well as a lesser number from the labouring echelon. Nonconformity is another factor to be considered, m with certain of the known local families (Kingsboroughs, Landifields, Mewses, Neales, Pacys, Risings and Wards) noticeable in their tendency to marry outside the parish - perhaps as a way of avoiding too many marriages made within too limited a circle of acquaintance and propinquity. 

Finally, there are seventy-six examples of couples from the town getting married in other parishes, with thirteen of the unions entered in the Lowestoft registers (eleven of them between 1669 and 1678, with the other two taking place in 1698 and 1708, respectively), presumably at the request of the couples themselves. The other sixty-three have no record made therein, though with the very small number featuring in both the Corton and Pakefield registers perhaps suggesting that other local parishes might also have been venues. In most cases, the wives’ maiden names of these “out-of-towners” were only discovered through information revealed in wills. If the documents had not survived, the female origins would have remained unknown. Most of the couples who got married in other parishes were from merchant families and from the better-off tradespeople and mariners. Pre-marital pregnancy does not seem to have been a factor in their choosing to become wed in a parish removed from their own, but Nonconformity was a likely reason in certain families - especially after the Act of Indulgence in 1672, when Nonconformist places of worship were officially recognised and licensed. Lowestoft did not have its own Independent Chapel until 1697, but it is known that the one present in Great Yarmouth (dating from the 1640s) had a connection with at least some of the Lowestoft dissenters.

The average age at first marriage for the period 1600-1750 (based on the known baptismal dates for both partners) was 25.2 years for men and 24.8 for women, with small differences noticeable within subdivisions of the overall time-scale. For 1601-1650, it was 24.5 for men and 24.6 for women; for 1651-1700, 25.7 and 24.7; and from 1701-1750, 25.3 and 25.2. Teenage marriage was uncommon, especially for men - a characteristic noted in other English communities during the Pre-industrial Era. With only five bridegrooms under the age of twenty out of a total of 317 whose ages at marriage were known, the proportion (1.6%) is consistent with the observation that teenage grooms never exceeded 4% of the total number before 1750. The number of teenage brides was thirty-one, out of a total of 335 whose ages at marriage were known - a proportion of 9%, which is a little below the 11%-13% noted in other English parishes.

Once a couple had become man and wife, there was only a one in four chance that their marriage would last for more than five years. It has been said the most couples in Pre-industrial England could expect to spend twenty years together and that the duration might stretch to thirty for 20-25% of the partners. This is not true of Lowestoft. As Table 1 shows, out of a total of 1,049 marriages, where both the date of the wedding ceremony and of the death of one or other of the spouses is known, 284 (27%) lasted five years or less. Only 133 marriages (13%) were of sixteen to twenty years in length and a mere sixty-one (6%) lasted between thirty-one and thirty-five years. 

1. Length of marriage in Lowestoft, 1561-1730 (in-town weddings)

With so many marriages ending comparatively early because of the death of a partner, it is not surprising that remarriage was a pronounced feature of conjugal life. At no point did the number of remarriages in Lowestoft, as proportion of the whole, fall below 28% - with this occurring during a twenty-five year period (1651-1675) in which there was defective registration - meaning that the number of remarriages was almost certainly higher than the total recorded. It has been stated elsewhere that, during the 17th century, remarriages constituted about 25% of all marriages - and so, broadly speaking, Lowestoft conforms with this in only one of eight twenty-five year periods - that from 1651-1675. 

2. Remarriage in Lowestoft, 1561-1750

Though it is not indicated in either Tables 1 or 2, part of the pattern of remarriage in Lowestoft was the length of time taken by people to find new partners after the death of a spouse. It is evident from those marriages solemnised in St. Margaret’s Church, 1561-1750, that the townspeople took less time to form fresh alliances than was customary for the country as a whole.During the 17th century, Lowestoft men had an average inter-marriage interval of 15 months and women 28, as opposed to 23 and 37 nationally - while, during the first half of the 18th, it was 22 and 30 compared with 26 and 48. The incidence of quick remarriage was also more pronounced for men than national figures show, with 41% of widowers remarrying within six months of the death of a partner during the 16th and 17th century, compared with 33%. Women, on the other hand, showed even less of a tendency to remarry quickly than the national figure of 15% established for their gender, with only 11% of them taking new husbands within a six-month interval.

It would probably be a natural assumption that the death of a spouse, in leaving young children without one parent, might well be an incentive for the remaining partner to remarry quickly. But the information available does not seem to suggest this. During the 17th century, men without children had an average inter-marriage interval of 13 months, while for those with young families it was 17. For the first half of the 18th, the length of time was 22 and 21 months. In the case of women, under-age children (ten years probably being the accepted upper limit to define this) seem to have been an impediment to remarriage, probably because of the financial responsibility for them devolving upon new husbands. The average intervals cited for men are seen to have been as follows for women: 24 and 32 months for the 17th century and 26 and 34 for the 18th. As a final word on remarriage, it might be presumed that sea-farers with under-age children would be sooner to find new wives - but the figures do not suggest this. Men who made their living on the waves were no more likely to remarry quickly than those working on land - which means that they must either have come ashore and changed occupation or left offspring in the care of relatives (or even, perhaps, close friends) while they were at sea.

One area in which maritime activity did influence the pattern of marriage and remarriage in Lowestoft was that of seasonal distribution. This is noticeably different from that observed by historians over England as a whole. The peak time for marriages in eastern and southern parts of the country, generally speaking, was October and November (after harvest), while in northern and western regions it was April, May and June (post-lambing and pre-haymaking). Lowestoft shows a departure from the southern half of the country by having its marriage peak in November, December and January - a factor which was probably due to the local herring fishing season being in full swing during the month of October, thereby leaving a substantial number of local adult males no time to spare in setting up home. Up until 1675, March was always the month with the lowest number of marriages (this being the season of Lenten observance and abstinence), but October was low also because of the practical considerations referred to in the previous sentence. The noticeable increase in marriages taking place in each of these months after 1675 may have been due in part to a decline in traditional Lenten observance in post-Restoration England and to Lowestoft’s economy being less reliant on herring fishing and curing after the town being granted port status in 1679 - the latter enabling an increase in maritime trading activity, which was less influenced by seasonal factors.

3. Marriages per month, 1561-1750

It is worth noting that the October figures were inflated during the last two twenty-five year periods by a substantial number of males from outside the parish getting married in town during that particular month. If they are removed from the reckoning, October marriages add up to a total of 21 for 1701-1725 and 17 for 1726-1750, making a total of 109 for the overall time-span. There is also some distortion of the figures for 1626-1650 and 1651-1675 because of under-registration of marriages for 1640-5, 1651-3 and 1658-62 - some of which was caused by the upheavals of the English Civil Wars, the Protectorate period and the Restoration of the Monarchy.Apart from these statistical considerations, the only other comment necessary is that the relatively low rate of marriages during the three summer months of June, July and August was probably as much the result of men being absent on fishing voyages as being involved with agricultural activity (which was an important element of the town’s economy). Indeed, the slight rise detectable in marriages during the month of September may reflect the practice, on the part of some fishermen, of getting married during the lull between the end of the North Sea second cod-lining voyage and summer mackerel-catching activity and the onset of the autumn herring season.

Mobility of Population

References in the previous section to the mobility of marriage partners (particularly male ones) raise the question of the mobility of people generally. This is seen at its most obvious in the 2,136 marriages which exist(ed) for those people who married outside the parish - referred to in the sixth paragraph of the previous section - and who were either natives of the place or who (much more numerously) were migrants into it. 554 of these seem to have been families who were resident in the parish for only a limited length of time. However, the total of 1,870 marriages solemnised in St. Margaret’s Church also includes 373 unions which seem to have been of a short-stay nature, as well as 144 which are best discounted because one partner, or both, were from out of town and did not stay for any length of time after the ceremony. Thus, out of an overall total of 3,889 marriages, 981 (25%) seem to have been those of people who stayed less than three years in town - the evidence being based mainly on just one or two baptismal (and sometimes burial) entries in the registers for each family unit. If the period of residency is extended to twelve years, the percentage rises to 33%, which is not far removed from what has been observed elsewhere (38%).

The mobile element of the population, on the evidence of occupational references in the parish registers, seems to have been largely composed of labouring people (including domestic servants, both male and female) and lesser trades folk and artisans. It also contained a small number of gentry (especially between 1560 and 1590), though the men in question had no connection with the handful of lesser gentry established in the town.A study of urban residents in the dioceses of Bath-and-Wells, Exeter, Norwich, Oxford and Salisbury found that between half and two-thirds of the people who featured in ecclesiastical court cases of one kind and another were migrants - and that the tendency to migrate was greatest among men and women under the age of twenty-five and also noticeable in the age-group from late twenties to early thirties. If child-bearing evidence is to be believed in the case of Lowestoft (in that most of the data which suggests a pronounced degree of population mobility takes the form of baptismal entries in the parish registers), then the transient members of the community were very largely in the second age-group identified. Burial entries also occur from time to time for “a single man” or “a single woman”, and it may well be that at least some of the people so-described were in the under twenty-five group previously referred to.

It has been stated that population mobility was a pronounced feature of the 16th and 17th centuries, and that most urban growth was the result of migration - not natural population increase. In Lowestoft’s case, the regular arrival of outsiders probably helped to keep the population at a fairly constant level between 1560 and 1650 (though major plague epidemics in 1603 and 1635 would have had a diminishing effect at the time they occurred). The motivation behind migration into the parish cannot be unequivocally identified, but it was probably a combination of what has been described as the “subsistence” type and “betterment” type. It was almost certainly the former of these which made itself felt during the 1580s - part of the Elizabethan problem of what has been described as “the itinerant poor” - to the point where the annual manorial leet court of 1582 felt compelled to issue this statement:

“First we do ordain that forasmuch as Daily have & Do recourse unto this Town many & sundry poor people out of other Towns & do hire Cottages of the inhabitants here brin[g]ing with them many children to the great Burden of this Town & impoverishing of the same if remove be not provided, That therefore none of the Inhabitants of this Town shall let at any time hereafter any Cottage or Tenement to any such poor p[e]rson unless the same owner shall enter first under to the churchwardens of Lowestoft getting first the consent of the most p[ar]t of the same Towne upon pain to forfeit for every time so letting to the contrary to the Lord of this Leet xxxixs xid.” 

A fine of 39s 11d (one penny short of £2) was the equivalent of about three months’ wages for an ordinary working man and shows how seriously the influx of impoverished people was taken at this particular time. But, whatever brought people into Lowestoft at any time over the 200-year time-span studied, one thing is certain: at least a quarter of them did not stay in the place for very long. The parish registers give no clue as to the places of origin of the families which arrived in town, though those of incomers who married townspeople are usually recorded. It is almost as if the clergy and parish clerks of the time regarded family groups as as inhabitants of the place as soon as they were resident there. However, it is possible to trace the origins of most of the people coming into town between 1698 and 1769 because of the survival of a book recording settlement orders and details of the apprenticing of poor children (Suffolk Archives, 01/13/1/3).

The Settlement Act of 1679 prohibited strangers from residing in any English parish unless they provided a certificate from where they had come (usually presented to the churchwardens) showing that they could could return to that community should they become dependent on poor relief. A study of the first three decades of the 18th century in the settlement order document reveals that 144 were made for the following combinations of people: two parents and children, seventy-three; women with children (including one widow) four; married couples without children, thirty-three; widows, four; single men, twenty-six; single women, four. The great majority of them (136) refer to people from Suffolk and Norfolk, but there were six sets of incomers with places of origin as follows: Colchester (married couple), Harwich (parents and children, single man) and London (three lots of parents and children). Two further entries refer to parents and children from Hevingham and a married couple from Sutton. The former could refer to Heveningham in Suffolk or Hevingham in Norfolk, while the latter could have been in either county. There is no way of establishing which.

The most obvious feature of this inward migration is the way that most of the newcomers (110 out of 136) originated from places within a fifteen-mile radius of Lowestoft, with the strongest influence exerted by the town on Suffolk parishes lying within a five-mile radius. No genuine long-distance migration is in evidence - and, even if the six examples mentioned in the previous paragraph are cited, it remains a minor factor at best. A notional maritime connection is possible with the incomers from Colchester, Harwich and London, and the same kind of association its detectable in some of the other communities named: Hollesley, Southwold and Woodbridge in Suffolk; Cromer, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn in Norfolk. 

It is possible, using data from family reconstitution of the parish registers to attach occupations to thirty-two of the men named in the settlement orders between 1698 and 1730. There were ten labourers, six mariner/fishermen, two bakers, two cordwainers and one shoemaker (these being identical trades), brickmaker, mason, house carpenter, glazier, gardener, maltster, keelman, barber-innkeeper, surgeon, chimneysweep and fiddler (violinist). Thus, it can be seen that the concentration of occupations, where given, was largely in the labouring, maritime and artisan elements of the population.

Family reconstitution also enabled these incomers’ length of stay to be known. Nine of the ten labourers settled (remaining in town until death) and the last stayed for six or seven years. All six mariner/fishermen settled, as did the two cordwainers and the shoemaker. One of the bakers remained, but the other seems to have moved on soon after arrival since he does not feature in any parish register entries. The brickmaker, mason and house carpenter all settled, and the glazier remained in town for six or seven years. The gardener and the maltster became permanent residents, but the keelman stayed for only four or five years (keels were the vessels which preceded the wherries, for river traffic). And the barber-innkeeper, surgeon, chimneysweep and fiddler also became established in the town.

4. Length of stay: people named in the settlement orders, 1698-1730

A further reminder of the of the general mobility of population in pre-industrial times is to be found in the Lowestoft register burial entries, where there are frequent references to outsiders who either died in the parish (the great majority) or who had children that did. There are 284 of these altogether between 1561 and 1750 (226 men and fifty-eight women), and these people do not feature at all in the family reconstitution material. They represent, in the main, men or women who had come into the town on business of some kind or other (work connected, most likely), or who were just passing through, rather than genuine migrants who had come into the parish to settle. Within the overall total of adults referred to, at least twelve children who died in town are mentioned: eleven boys and one girl - the latter being only one month old. One of the boys is described as “a lad from Rye” - with his name given, but no age or other information recorded. He was probably older than all the others, who are described as “son of” their named fathers - except for a single case of a three-weeks old illegitimate baby belonging to a named stranger woman.

For the most part, the outsiders can be classified in three broad categories. Firstly, people from Suffolk (seventy-four) and Norfolk (sixty-eight), with 87% of them coming from within a fifteen-mile radius of Lowestoft and with 20% of this figure (c. thirty in number) being from parishes closest to it: Corton, Carlton Colville, Gunton, Oulton and Pakefield. Next, come people from other parts of England (102) and, finally, those from Scotland, Ireland and the near-Continent (forty). Maritime connections are clearly visible in all three groups and the number of outside women dying in town increased noticeably after 1700. In addition to outsiders generally, whose geographical home-location is given, there is also a substantial minority (19%) who simply bear the title of “stranger” in the burial records (often in addition to their names) and whose places of origin are not therefore known.

Included in the people cited above, there were two burials of unlocatable inhabitants of Norfolk: a boy with no home parish specified (1565) and a man from Copstead (1706) - a place which it has not been possible to identify. Between 1726 and 1750, eighteen of the twenty-one Great Yarmouth people buried in Lowestoft had originated from the town (five men, seven women, four boys and two girls) - and there is evidence that some of the other local burials were also the result of family connections. The term “Western man”, which is met with from time to time, was generally applied to anyone from the South Coast - and various maritime occupations and ranks are referred to among deceased male strangers, as well as among men from other places which are named (“sailor” and “fisherman” being the most common). In the final period, 1700-1750, there were fifteen burials of men who had died, for been killed, on board passing ships.

Burial of people from the West European mainland (especially the Low Countries) seems to have resulted largely from their having been temporarily based in town while engaged in either fishing or other commercial activity. The Lay Subsidies of 1524-5 and 1568 show that Lowestoft also had foreign residents - a feature also detectable in neighbouring communities (Corton, Kirkley, Pakefield and Kessingland). The earlier return shows two Dutchmen taxed on goods worth £7 and £12 respectively (merchants of some kind), while four Dutchmen, four Frenchmen, one Breton, two Channel Islanders and four Scotsmen were each assessed on £1 wages (workmen). Maritime associations of some kind (especially fishing) are the likely explanation for their presence, as is the case with the 1568 levy in which two “Iceland boys” are seen to have been in service with local innkeepers (the connection here being the Spring lining voyage for cod and ling in Northern waters rather the local herring season). Additionally, a Dutchman and a Frenchman are seen to have been working as servants for two local merchants.

The parish registers, especially between 1561 and 1583, contain a substantial number of references to foreigners - a feature which is most noticeable between 1571 and 1574, when at least twelve Dutch families were resident in the town. This particular three-year period is the only occasion that people from overseas came into the town in such numbers and lived there - albeit for a limited period. Their arrival was probably due to the Duke of Alva’s persecution of Protestants in the Low Countries (part of these being included in the Spanish Empire from 1556 to 1714) - but the decision to come to Lowestoft may well have been influenced by links established through herring catching and processing. Marriages between the incomers, as well as baptismal and burial entries, are all present in the registers - which terminate suddenly in January 1575, apart from one family (the Willyamsonns) which remained in town until at least 1579. Where these incomers went to is not known - but Norwich is a strong possibility, with a significantDutch element in its population, as is Great Yarmouth which also had a permanent small presence based on North Sea herring.

After 1600, the Lowestoft registers contain far fewer references to people from outside, (whether foreign or English, distant or local) for some considerable time. There are 166 such entries for 1561-1600, but only thirty-eight for 1601-1650. It is as if the town withdrew into itself for half a century or more, before becoming more open again during the mid-17th century (following Restoration of the Monarchy) and particularly during the the early decades of the 18th - at least, as far as inhabitants of other English towns are concerned, if not incomers from abroad. The period of reduced links with outside communities almost certainly resulted from a combination of factors: the serious plague outbreaks of 1603 and 1635, the temporary decline of the North Sea herring fishery, the English Civil War period and other nations’ conflicts abroad on both land and sea.

Births and Family Size

During the Pre-industrial Era, the overall rate of conceptions in England is generally acknowledged as having been highest from April to July and lowest from August to November. Lowestoft did not conform to this pattern. Table 5 shows that it had its peak from November to February, while the low point occurred between June and September. The pattern was subject to fluctuations within certain of its twenty-five year blocks, but over the two-century period as a whole it can be seen to have been maintained - especially during the first half of the 18th century. Thus departure from the norm may well have been the result of maritime influences on the community’s sexual behaviour. As was noted earlier, the town’s marriage peak occurred from November to January, to synchronise with the annual autumn herring season, and this would have had a knock-on effect with regard to conceptions and births. The winter lull in fishing activity was used as a period of preparation for cod-lining voyages to Faeroe and Iceland, as well as in the North Sea, and trading operations were often reduced because bad weather kept vessels confined to local waters. This means that mariners had their longest period on land out of the whole twelve-month cycle.

5. Conceptions by four-month periods, 1561-1750

Considering the peak time for conceptions occurred between November and February, it may appear surprising that this is not reflected in a corresponding peak for baptisms during the period February-May. Table 6 shows that baptisms were distributed evenly across all the four-month periods adopted to reflect the nine-month pregnancy period. It has been claimed that the birth of a child was followed closely by baptism in the Pre-industrial Era (a few days at most), but the limited evidence available in the Lowestoft registers suggests that this may not have been the case. The are only twenty-six instances where birth and baptismal dates are recorded and the difference between them ranges from four days to a month, with the majority concentrating around an interval of ten to fourteen days. Any baptisms occurring weeks (rather than days) after the babies had been born would serve to obscure the pattern of births. Furthermore, given the fact that Lowestoft was a maritime community, it is possible that baptisms may not have taken place until the father had completed a fishing season or trading voyage.

6. Baptisms by four-month periods, 1561-1750

7. Baptisms in twenty-five year periods, 1561-1750

One of the most obvious features in the overall analysis of baptisms is the excess of male births over female ones.This shows clearly in Table 7 and works out very close to the ratio of 105:100, which has been identified as being typical of all human populations. Other aspects of the overall view include the number of illegitimate children baptised, as well as those of parents from outside the local community, who were either staying in town at the time of birth or were temporarily resident there. These latter consisted partly of the Dutch refugees referred to the previous section, and sixteen of thirty baptisms of outsiders recorded between 1561 and 1600 were theirs. The other fourteen were the offspring of people from nearby parishes (five examples) or from further away (nine examples). The pronounced drop in the number of outsider baptisms after 1600 may be further evidence of Lowestoft becoming more isolated from the wider world during the period 1600-1650 (as referred to at the end of the previous section), but does not reflect the increase in contact again during the second half of the 17th century and the first half of the 18th.

Another aspect of family structure detectable in the baptismal entries in the parish registers is the birth intervals between the children born. These are broadly in line with what has been observed in the Early Modern period and may be summarised thus: a period of fourteen to eighteen months between marriage and first child, twenty-five to thirty-three months between subsequent children born before the penultimate one, and thirty-one to thirty-seven months between the penultimate child and its predecessor and between it and the last child of all. These intervals are of a generalised nature and do not take account of the many factors considered by the Cambridge Group (for which the Lowestoft family reconstitution was carried out) in arriving at more sophisticated and detailed statistics - but, they will serve as an indicator here. And so will the data, shown in Table 8, giving the average age of mothers at the time of their last child being born.

8. Average age of mothers at birth of last child, 1561-1750

A further body of information made available by the parish registers is the rate of illegitimacy. This was low through the whole period of study with only 136 baptisms of bastard children recorded out of an overall total of 8,966 (1.5%) - though the proportion increases sightly to 1.7% with the addition of thirteen children who were buried without having been first baptised. In overall terms, illegitimacy was less marked in Lowestoft than in the country as a whole - at least up until about 1700. Table 9 presents the details, with the national percentage appended in brackets for the purposes of comparison. No explanation offers itself for this and no guesses can be made. It is great interest to note that the printed copies of the Lowestoft parish registers produced by F.A Crisp during the early 20th century record the baptisms and burials of illegitimate children, but make no reference to their social status and condition as the registers themselves do. It can only be presumed that this was the result of social or moral reservations in the matter - a hang-over perhaps from Victorian times with their accompanying sense of rectitude in matters of human behaviour. Especially that dispensed from on high to the less elevated and affluent levels of society, whose cheap labour helped to create the wealth of their superiors.

9. Illegitimate births per twenty-five year periods, 1561-1750

Finally, there is the matter of family size to be considered. Taken as a unit with both parents and children, it averages out at about 4.5, which is what is generally accepted as being typical of the Pre-industrial Era. But there should be no cosy comparison with the once much-cited “2.4 children” situation of Modern times. In Early Modern Lowestoft, before a marriage had reached ten or fifteen years’ duration, there was a one in four chance of either partner being dead and a one in five chance of each of the three or four children produced not reaching the age of one year. Such are the stark realities which lie within the pages of parish register data!

 Lowestoft Mortality 1561-1750

10.Half-century figures (infant deaths per thousand)

The current infant mortality rate in the UK is about 4 per 1000 (3.7). In 1950, it was 32 and in 1900, 150. The figures in Table 10 above - based on analysis of the Lowestoft parish registers, which have 1561 as the earliest surviving year of entry - gives the statistics for the town during the Early Modern period. One interesting feature is that over the years, in most parts of the world, female infants have a better survival rate than males. The figures above do not show this, except for the period 1601-1650 - during which the town was undergoing a time of maritime decline in both fishing and seaborne trade. Thus, one possible overall interpretation of the statistics is that in a coastal community, where boys and men were of key importance in manning fishing craft and trading vessels (as well as providing the workforce for onshore trades), more early care may have been devoted to their nurture than to that of female children. Except in a time of maritime difficulty, when the parish registers show a noticeable drop in the number of sea-related occupations and a pronounced increase in those connected with agriculture (husbandmen, particularly). With the overall proportion of first-year infant mortality standing at 20% (one in five),illegitimate births were double that at 40%. The parish registers show that between 1561 and 1730, out of a total of 149 children born out of wedlock (136 definite and thirteen strong possibilities), sixty-five died within the year (44%). There was also a high rate of post-natal maternal mortality: 23 per 1000 for 1561-1600, dropping to 14 for 1701-1750.

11. Mortality crisis years (all deaths)

Mortality crisis years are those in which the mortality-rate was at least twice the average for the period considered - the time-span chosen here being twenty-five years. In addition to the years indicated above, 1602 and 1610 (eight-one and eighty-two burials, respectively) would also have qualified as crisis years had it not been for the extremely high mortality in 1603 raising the average for the period 1601-1625. During the 18th century, smallpox caused high mortality from time to time, but the epidemics do not show as crisis years because average burial rates for the two periods 1701-1725 and 1726-1750 were relatively high anyway.

12. Other years of high mortality

The statistics above in Tables 11 & 12 show that Lowestoft reflects a national trend, with plague afflicting the town during the later 16th century and first half of the 17th and smallpox becoming the main menace during the first half of the 18th - the latter being noted specifically by the Revd. John Tanner in register entries. Various other epidemics are suggested in the parish registers in the high mortality rates noted at certain times of the year or in the ones affecting either children or adults. There are also instances where particular families were struck down by disease, without any any evidence of what the fatal illnesses were. The term “sweating sickness” is sometimes encountered in 16th and 17th century documentation (but not in the Lowestoft registers) - and, while there is no certainty regarding its meaning, it might refer to influenza during the winter months and to malaria during the summer (especially in marshy areas of the country).

13.Burials per selected four-month periods, 1561-1750

The peak time of year for burials in pre-industrial England was January to April, with a high point reached in the latter two months of the four. Lowestoft does not conform to this pattern. Its burial peak was, as shown above, from August to November throughout the whole period of analysis. There is no ready explanation for this, but it may have resulted from a maritime factor. The autumn was the time of the local herring fishing season and most of the town’s seafarers would have been involved in it (particularly before 1700) - whereas at other times of the year many of them would have been absent on other fishing activity (such as the Spring voyage to Faeroe and Iceland to fish for cod and ling) or engaged in maritime trading ventures. 

14. Burials overall, 1561-1750

The number of burials in Lowestoft over a period of almost 200 years is seen to be on an overall upwards curve, which generally reflects the increase in the town’s population from round about 1,500 in 1600 to 1,850 or so by 1725 and 2,000 by 1750. The fall in numbers from 1621-1675 was mainly the result of the cumulative effect of the two big plague outbreaks of 1603 and 1635, plus the town's maritime economic difficulties of the time and disruption of the parish registration process during the period of the English Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and the early Restoration years (causing under-recording) - something which is a feature widely noted over much of England. The marked number of adult female deaths in excess of those of males was possibly the result of women’s susceptibility to sickness and death during their earlier years, following childbirth, because later on in life they had a better survival rate than men.

It has been thought that a high level of widowhood might be expected in maritime communities. And loss of life at sea was certainly a feature. However, in Lowestoft’s case, the exact degree cannot be ascertained. The possibility of the deaths of drowned mariners being entered in parish registers has been speculated upon, but this was not the practice in Lowestoft. The loss of fourteen fishermen is recorded in the Vicar’s day-book(Norfolk Record Office, PD 589/3) at one point during the early 18th century, but the drownings are not written into the parish register entries themselves. Four of the men died in 1714 and ten in 1716, and it may have been the case that two individual storms were responsible for their deaths. Out of the ninety-one Lowestoft mariners whose wills have survived for the period 1561-1730, forty have no burial entry in the registers and may well have been lost at sea. Of this forty, twenty-nine had wives who were alive when the document was drawn up. Altogether, forty-four of the wills were made by the testators in a state of good health, which suggests that the men themselves knew only too well the risks involved in making a living on the waves.

The burial of “strangers” noted (usually without their names being recorded) refers largely to those people who were either passing through town for some reason or other, who were there briefly on business of some kind, or who were seafarers whose bodies were washed ashore. As can be seen, their presence is a minimal feature of the data, but one which nevertheless has its own comment to make on regarding the movement of people at the time. Places of origin are often given in the records, particularly those near at hand in either Suffolk or Norfolk - with places further removed in England also featuring, as well as references to near-European countries bordering on the North Sea. Strong maritime connections with either fishing or maritime trade are in evidence in all of this and all of these people from near or far were buried in Lowestoft at the parish’s expense. One particularly interesting feature is that, occasionally, even people from close neighbouring communities (who had died in Lowestoft) were buried there - such as Robert Stares of Blundeston (1578) and John Ward of Corton (1592). No particular reason can be given for this, but it is a noticeable aspect of the registration process across the whole period of analysis.

15. Baptisms and burials, 1561-1750

A comparison of the numbers of baptisms and burials above enables an opinion to be formed as to whether or not urban recruitment (inward migration) was necessary to maintain Lowestoft’s population level. Certain adjustments needed to be made to keep the calculations pertinent to the town. Thus, anyone who featured in the baptism and burial registers without having a true residential qualification was disregarded. Among the people eliminated were those who were just passing through, those returning to have a first child baptised, and those temporarily living in the place because their business had taken them there for a short period of time. This removed eighty-seven baptisms from the overall total of 8,966 and 284 burials from the 8,866 recorded, making respective totals of 8,879 and 8,582 as shown in the table above.

Apart from two twenty-five year periods, when epidemic had an adverse impact, it can be seen that Lowestoft’s population achieved a small, ongoing, overall increase - at least in the simplistic sense that the number of baptisms totalled more than the number of burials. This was the result of the procreative output of people indigenous to the town and of those of the incomers who settled there. There was never a large degree of permanent inward migration into Lowestoft during the Early Modern period, but that which did take place helped to to ensure that the population level recovered from periods of high mortality (especially the two major outbreaks of plague in 1603 and 1635) and helped it to grow once the balance had been restored. What the figures do not factor in, of course, is the number of baptised children who did not live to reach adulthood, marry and experience parenthood.

Much more could have been said here, in each of the four sections, regarding family reconstitution of the Lowestoft parish registers and its value in creating an understanding of the town’s structure and function. But, it is to be hoped that there is sufficient material present to give a feeling for certain aspects of community life which might otherwise go largely unrecorded and unnoticed. 

CREDIT:David Butcher