Fishing family in 16th century Lydd

This short report seeks to illustrate the value of using testamentary materials to investigate the inheritance strategies used by a particular Lydd family of fishermen, though it may be useful to remember the limitations of this type of evidence. For instance, such sources often represent a division of the testator's goods and property on his/her death bed and so rarely indicate in vitam gift-giving: like the provision of household and/or occupation/craft items to sons and daughters, possibly at marriage, coming of age or as part of a retirement agreement. For the Lydd wills this was partly offset by the high proportion of testators who had young children because even though they might be the offspring of second or even third marriages, they were likely to receive their portion of the inheritance at this time (frequently to be held by their mother or the executor until they reached a stated age or were married).[fn2]

Between 1400 and 1590 seventy-six testators from Lydd are known to have left at least one item relating to fishing.[fn3] Interestingly, a small minority of these testators had few connections with the industry, like Henry Bate (1478) who left his wife two sprot nets, his main interests like those of his kin being livestock farming.--! Others appear to have been heavily dependent on fishing, apart from his tenement and household goods William Rychard's (1482) only known assets comprised a shot net, a flew net, 3 lines of harbour hooks and a line of small hooks which he bequeathed to his wife and two sons.[fn5] His sons may have been fishermen but they seem to have disappeared from the Lydd records within a decade, although there was a William Richarde, husbandman, living in New Romney in the mid sixteenth century.[fn6] The problems of variable catches, the seasonal nature of the work and the high risks involved seem to have considerably reduced the likelihood of sons successfully following their fathers, especially where the family had few other sources of income.[fn7] However, for John Stockam it may have been an absence of male heirs rather than hisfamily's financial situation which persuaded him to instruct his executors to sell the cabin and boats he had inherited from his father.[fn8]

This lack of family continuity in a particular town/occupation has been noted elsewhere for the late medieval period.[fn9] Consequently it seems worthwhile lo examine the inheritance strategies adopted by the Dyne family of Lydd where at least three generations were actively engaged in fishing. lo Members of the family had been resident in Lydd from the early fifteenth century. John Dyne was recorded in the Lydd Chamberlains' Accounts on several occasions between 1433 and 1459, including being "put in fetters" for striking the vicar in 1434 and his illegal release by a number of local shipmasters.[fn11] Although John and other family members may have been involved in fishing, the first known fisherman was Adrian Dyne.[fn12] In 1510 Adrian and Thomas lnglott had jointly purchased a cabin at the Ness from the executors of Richard Notye.[fn13] Thomas was apparently of moderate means, having several properties at the Ness and a new boat which may imply he was seeking to help Adrian, possibly many years his junior, establish himself as a fisherman. They were in partnership for less than a year and in Thomas' will Adrian received outright his half share of the cabin, Thomas' widow receiving the other half.[fn14] She appears to have remarried within a very short time but survived for less than a year, and although her new husband received the bulk of her property, she bequeathed her share of the cabin to Adrian.[fn15] These bequests may have significantly aided him, and by the time of his death in 1518 he had established a successful fishing enterprise, having a cabin, half shares in three boats, several types of net and other items.[fn16] The majority of this fishing equipment was inherited by two of his sons, John the elder receiving a half share of the cabin and half shares in two boats, the 'Michael' and the 'James', while Richard was given several nets and a 'trow' 'of hooks. Robert and John the younger, his other sons, each received a third of his tenement with their brother Richard, which may imply they had already gained other assets from their father. It is not clear whether he hoped his two daughters would marry fishem1en, though his recorded dowry provisions of a sprat net each if they married a fisherman rather than 6s8d if they married a landsman, may indicate he wished to provide his future sons-in-law with the chance to join the family business. Adrian's policy of a modified form of partible inheritance appears to have provided his eldest son with the opportunity to head the family fishing enterprise through the forming of a fishing company or fellowship based at the cabin and on the boats. If John the elder agreed to do this he was to have the use of the cabin, either buying his mother's half share or paying her 3s4d annually, but if he farmed out his inheritance his mother was to receive half the profits. It is likely that Adrian expected Richard would be one of his brother's crew and that the nets Richard was to receive would be employed on one of the boats. Richard was a young man at this time and presumably was still living in the family home which allowed Adrian to impose certain conditions on his son's inheritance. He was only to receive the nets and hooks if he stayed and served his mother until he was twenty one.Through these provisions Adrian hoped to maintain the family business intact for the benefit of his eldest son, and probably the youngest, as well as ensuring his wife's maintenance during her widowhood.

He was successful and when Florence made her will two years later she sought to maintain his policy, apparently extending it to all her sons. She bequeathed nets to all of them, except John the elder who received her half-share in the cabin, presumably as a means of retaining all the fishing equipment in the family and allowing all her sons the opportunity to work on their brother's boats, or elsewhere if they so wished.[fn17] Interestingly, she also employed this concept of sharing with respect to her great kettle because John the elder might only inherit if he agreed to allow his brother free use whenever he needed it and, in addition, he was to allow John Nycoll's wife to use it at Christmas if she needed to brew.[fn18] Her two daughters were each to receive a half share of her household goods and clothes which may suggest neither was married and that Florence was providing traditional dowry items.

John the elder appears to have been a respected member of the fishing community because he acted for a number of local men, for example he was one of John Bruer's feoffees and in return received a shot net. 19 He was also an executor for his kinsman, anotherJohn Dyne the elder, and in this case he was responsible for the sale of John's cabin and all his sea craft to pay off his debts, probably depriving George, John's son, with the opportunity to follow his father. 20 In contrast, John the elder (son of Adrian) was able to provide for his own sons at his death in 1548. He seems to have followed his mother's lead by giving a number of nets to his sons and this policy of partible inheritance was also employed with respect to his cabins at the Ness and his lands and tenements in Lydd and Brookland.[fn21] However, he apparently agreed with his father's ideas regarding the boats because his eldest son Thomas received a half share in the 'Michael', possibly the boat John had received from his father, and a half-share in the 'John', possibly the share Adrian had intended his executors should sell in order to pay his debts.[fn22] During his lifetime John had acquired the other share in the 'Michael' and in his will he left it to his brother Robert.[fn23] This suggests that John may have felt it was advisable for Thomas to work with his uncle, even though he was an adult, before establishing himself as a shipmaster.

Three years earlier Robert had been a beneficiary in his brother Richard's will, including a half share of his brother's boat, the other half passing to Richard's wife.24 Thus of the four sons named in Adrian' s will, at least three followed their father. The exception being John the younger who may not have become a fisherman, though the evidence is inconclusive: his will does not appear to have survived and he did not receive any fishing equipment from his brothers, only20s from John, his elder brother.25 John the elder had sufficient equipment to aid his brothers, he left a sprot net to his nephew Adrian, Robert's son, which may imply his younger brother was following another occupation.

Robert appears to have been the last fisherman in his own family. In his will of 1576 his possibly only surviving son, Robert, inherited a great kettle and was to share the property and household goods with his mother.26 The nets (a new flew net and a manfare of shot nets), which he was presumably still using at the time of his will-making, were to pass outside the family through his bequest to another local fisherman, Bartholomew Wynday. Furthermore, he did not mention the cabin or his boat shares, possibly implying that he no longer held them.

The small number and size of his bequests suggests that he was of very moderate means which may reflect the state of the fishing industry in Lydd at this time, though old age may also have been a factor. The fishing industry at Rye was in decline, having reached its peak in the 156 0s, and even though its difficulties in part stemmed from local conditions, more general problems seem to have adversely affected these south Kent fishermen.[fn27]

Returning to John the elder's family, at least two of his sons were fishermen when they died. Unfortunately Thomas disappears from the records soon after his father's death so that it is not possible to trace the fate of the family's boats. However, it is possible to trace his brothers because they all remained in Lydd. Adrian became a tailor and though he appears to have married there are no references to any children in his will dated 1571 .28 His two brothers, John and William, were named as his executors but the only other member of the Dyne family mentioned was Robert, his uncle's son, who was left 3s4d, and instead he appears to have concentrated his giving on his wife's family.

Jolin called himself a fisherman when he made his will in 1586 but he also owned sheep which he may have farmed on the lands in Lydd and Brookland he hadjointly inherited with his brothers from his father.29 From the testamentary evidence he appears to have enjoyed greater prosperity than his siblings, suggesting that his social and economic standing in the town was similar to his father's and grandfather's.3 0 Like them he showed a deep concern for the well­ being of his family, though unlike them he appears to have seen the future of his children away from the sea. His young son and daughter were to remain under the governance of their mother until she considered they were old enough to enter service. Thomas might have been expected to become a servant in a yeoman's household where he would learn agricultural husbandry, a valuable education before he took control of his late father's farm lands. John's concern for Susan, his daughter, is interesting because in seeking to provide for her "education and better bringing up" he may be implying social aspirations on her behalf.

All his fishing equipment was to pass to his own generation, his brother in-law was the recipient of a sprat net, while William, his own brother, was the major beneficiary, receiving a new 'rande' of sprat nets "being in two peeces with a scoome belonging to the same", a net rope, a cabin and a capstan with a 'wynrope'. He had other nets but these were to be sold with some of his sheep to pay his debts and to provide for his daughter. The cabin and capstan might previously have belonged to his brother Thomas (though he may have bought them at some point) and this seems to imply he was more than a crewman. The absence of any boats, especially the family boats, is interesting but at this stage any reasons for this would be pure speculation.

They do not appear to have been in his brother's possession when William made his will 3 years later.[fn31] However, William did not record his nets either, his movable goods becoming the property of his wife. He may have sold/given away such assetspre morlem, but it seems more likely al least some of his fishing equipment was inherited by his wife and she may have sold it to pay his debts. He appears to have been far more concerned about his land and tenements which would provide his wife and daughter with a livelihood, and a dowry for Elizabeth at her marriage. It is possible the lack of a son may have prompted his apparent disinterest in continuing the family fishing enterprise, especially if the returns had declined considerably by this time and other options, like livestock farming, were seen as a profitable alternative. Consequently, he may have thought there was little advantage in bequeathing his nets to his nephew Thomas, particularly if the youngman was not following his father and uncle andwas instead concentrating on the family's agricultural holdings.

Even though this is a preliminary examination of the inheritance strategies adopted by Lydd fishermen and is primarily dependent on one family, it does suggest some interesting points. Partible inheritance appears to be characteristic of these testamentary sources, though this was more likely to be modified by male members of the family who, on occasion, seem to have favoured the eldest son. By so doing they were seeking to provide for their sons from the family assets, while maintaining a significant part of those assets within one line. This meant several members of one generation might become ftshern1en (or farm out their nets or other equipment to siblings or others) but by marking out one son as the holder of the boats, these testators were indicating ideas about leadership and continuity of the family, and its name. The continuity of the Dyne family as fishermen was also reinforced by only bequeathing the fishing equipment to family members, whereassome other fishern1en aided men outside the kinship group. These might be their partners, members of the crew or others which suggests complex links between the various fishing families. Although such inheritance strategies may have helped the widow and/or her family to maintain some interests in fishing, it did reduce the family's resources. However, the Dyne family appear to have had certain advantages which allowed them to develop their inheritance strategy: until the late sixteenth century there was no lack of male heirs and the family was relatively successful, which allowed them to extend their interests outside fishing and reduced the likelihood that their fishing equipment (their means of production) would have to be sold to pay their debts, a problem encountered by many fishermen testators during this period. Consequently, their longevity as a Lydd fishing family makes them extremely interesting and a valuable contrast to the majority of fishing families so far investigated in this region.

Sheila Sweetinburgh
Canterbury

1  This report is a preliminary analysis of the testamentary materials from Lydd, an article should be available for publication this summer. I should like to thank the Trust for the gmnl provided for this research.

2  For example. John Mychell (1532) intended that both his sons, John and Robert. should recei,·e a sprat net when they came or age. Until that time the nets \\'CfC to be in the occupancy of his wife. who would dcli\·cr them at the appropriate time with "newc rydges" or else their cash Yaluc (26s8d). His sons were also to inherit his tenement 14 years after his death (his wife was Lo hold it until then), suggesting a strict interpretation of the idea of partible inheritance; Centre forKentish Studies (CKS): PRC 32/15/194.

3  There are 653 wills for Lydd recorded in the Archdeaconry and Consistory Court Registers for this period.

4   She may haYe farmed out these ncls, her main interests being the liYestock (80 ewes, 1 /2 his lambs, 10 cows, 2 horses) she received and the majority of his lands; CKS: PRC 32/2/392.

5   His wife inherited a new net, possibly farming it out to one of her sons when he joined a ship's company or fellowship as a crewman. John was Lo receive the harbour hooks and the small hooks, his brother, William, a shot net; CKS: PRC 32/2/55 1. Flews were drift nets used for catching herring either locally or in the Norti1 Sea. shot nets were used off shore to catch mackerel, hooks with long lines were employed for a variety of fish depending on the time of year; Dulley, A., 'The early history of the Rye fishing industry'. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 107 ( 1969), 42-45.

6  CKS: PRC 32/27/66.

7   Using the Hythe maltote lists (a loc-al income and sales tax paid annually by householders) Andrew Butcher has discm·ercd considerable fluctuations in the totaJ annual catch which was not dependent on the number of fishermen involved; Butcher, A.. 'The differences between people in one small community, c. 1461 - 1483', a paper given at the Culture and Society seminar, University of Kent al Canterbury ( 1998).

8   Jn 1469 William left his son a 1/2 share in 2 boats, a 1/2 share in his cabin al the Ness (the other part was held by William Toft, presumably his partner), a manfare of news, a manfare of shol nets, a bossnet, a sprat net and 1/2 a 'trow' of hooks; CKS: PRC 32/2/197. John instructed his executors to sell these with all their appurtenances to pay his debts, his wife and daughter rccei,·ing the majority of his estate including a messuage, a tenement and his household goods; CKS: PRC 32/3/ 173.

9   For example, Kerrnodc's im·estigation of 3 northern to\\'ns indicated that few merchant families surYi,·ed in business for more than '.2 generations during the late medie,·al period; Kemmde, J., 'The merchants in three northern towns', in C. Clough (ed.), Profession, Voca1io11 and Cnliure i11 La/er Medieval E11g!a11d (Li,·erpool, 1982), 16-18.

10   This family is among those designated as ' fishermen-farmers' by Spencer Dimmock in his thesis on the development of class consciousness in late medieval Lydd; Dimmack, S., 'Class and the Social Transformation of a Late Medieval Small Tmrn: Lydd c. 1450 - 1550', Ph.D. thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury (1998).

11 The 1st record concerns a fine of 3s4d for the previous year. In the following 2 decades he was paid on a number of occasions for repair work on the 'common house' of Lydd; Records ofLydd, transcribed & translated A. Hussey & M. Hardy, ed. A. Finn (Ashford, 1911), 48, 56, tt3, 166, 189.

12 From the 15th century tesk,mentary e,·idence, neither Elizabeth Dyne, the widow of Richard, who made her will in 1498, nor Richard (possibly her son) who made his 10 years later, left any bequests indicating occupation; CKS: PRC 32/4/208; 32/9/86.

13 Richard had considerable fishing equipment which allowed him to give each of his 3 sons and his wife several fishing nets. However, they did not inherit his 2 boats and 4 cabins, these being sold to pay his debts; CKS: PRC 32/10/53. Mark Gardiner has described the fishermen's settlement al the Ness; Gardiner, M., • A Seasonal Fishermen's Settlement at Dungeness, Kent', A111111a/ Report of 1he Medieval Settlement Research Group, 11 (1996), 18-20; also printed in the lrregulor, 13 (1998).

14 Apart from his wife Thomas did not mention any other members of his family, the boat was to pass to Richard Edward of Rye; CKS: PRC 3'.!/10/113.

15 In addition to the cabin Adrian's wife was to recci,·e a gown; CKS: 32/1 1/3.

16 CKS: PRC 32/ 12/ 171.

17 Richard, Robert and John the younger each received l manfare of news and 1 manfare of shot nets; Thomas and Henry (possibly sons from an earlier marriage, otherwise it seems strangethey were absent from Adrian's will) each inherited a manfare of shot nets; CKS: PRC 32/13/40. According to Dulley from the Rye evidence 3 nets made a ·rnansfare' and the owner of a mansfare was entitled to receive the same share of the catch as a working member of the crew; Dulley, • Rye fishing industry', 48.

18   John the eider's wife seems to have been a member of the Nycolls family.

19   CKS: PRC 32/14/1 90.

20    CKS: PRC 32/14/222.

21    He bequeathed '.?. manfarc of news. 2 manfare of shol nets, 2 sprot nets and 1 trow of small hooks to Thomas, a manfare of news, a rnanfare of shot nets, 2 sprat nets to John, a manfare of shot nets and a manfare of flews to William, it is not clear why Adrian did not receive any nets. He was to share in the cabins with his brothers John and William (Thomas was to receive lhe soulh cabin) and all four brolhers were to share equally their father's other properties. He also followed his mother with respect to his da ughter's inheritance, household goods, cash and a cow, not nels; CKS: PRC 32/21 /98.

22    Although they may not have been the same boals, the idea of retaining the name may imply a desire to higWight lhe continuity ofthe Dyne family as Lydd fishermen. In addition to lhe boals, cabin a nd nels, Thomas received certain ropes and other equipment, probably associated with a capstan because they were in use at the Ness. Joane, lhe widow ofJohn Hogelyn, had inherited her late husband's fishing equipment, including nels, boats, cabins and capstans which she bequeathed to her son, Andrew, in 1560 (he was to pay his younger brother £5 when he reached the age of 21); CKS: PRC 32/ 29 /5.

23    He also bequeathed his middle cabin to Robert.

24   CKS: PRC 32/ 19/67.

25   A John the elder, fisherman, made his will in 1551, naming Robert his brother and Ba rtholomew his son, neither were to receive the I sprat net, the only fishing equipment recorded; CKS; PRC 32/23 /35.

26 CKS: PRC 32/33 /73.

27 According 10 Dulley Rye fishenncn appear to have mm·cd west to Brighton and Hastings in the early 17th century; Dulley, 'Rye fishing industry', 55-58. Maryanne Kowaleski considers the expansion of south-western fisheries was in part consequenton the decline of the earlier dominance of the east coast fishermen; Kowaleski, M., 'The expansion of the Southwestern Fisheries in Late Medieval England' (forthcoming).

28 CKS: PRC 32 /31/280.

29 CKS: PRC 32 /3512 20.

30 He was the first member of his family lo record a number of pewter items inhis will ; CKS: PRC 32 /35 /220.

31 CKS: PRC 32/36/188.