THE CONTEST BETWEEN YARMOUTH AND LOWESTOFT
RESPECTING KIRKLEY ROAD AND THE HERRING FISHERY.
IN order to discover the origin of those violent disputes and commotions
which subsisted so long between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, respecting
Kirkley road and the herring fishery, and to represent them in the
clearest and most impartial manner, it may be necessary to advert to a
preceding section, and to recapitulate from thence such circumstances as
may tend to the better understanding the various transactions of the
section we are now engaged in.
It was there observed, that in early ages, even before Yarmouth was
founded, it is probable, that Lowestoft was the general rendezvous of
both the northern and western fishers employed in the herring fishery;
because, until the sand whereon Yarmouth was afterwards built appeared
above the surface of the water and became firm land the fishermen that
resorted to these coasts for herrings must necessarily have a place more
southerly to assemble at. That as soon as the sand called Cerdick sand
had made its appearance, (the Saxons came first; afterwards the
portsmen), they found its situation so extremely convenient for drying of
nets, and the other necessary occupations of a seafaring life, that they
began soon after to erect temporary booths or tents there, as their
several circumstances would admit as well for the accommodation of their
persons as the security of their property. Soon after they had officers,
called bailiffs, deputed by the barons of the cinque ports, to
superintend the fishery for the space of forty days; afterwards they
began to erect houses, and at last was founded the burgh called Great
Yarmouth.
The burgesses of Yarmouth had a charter of liberties granted them by King
John; and the barons of the cinque ports had also certain liberties at
Yarmouth granted them by the same king or rather confirmed what they held
before by prescriptive right only: but these several liberties
interfering with each other gave rise to the most violent disputes and
depredations upon each others’ property, which continued, with some
intermissions, until the reign of queen Elizabeth, when a proposal for
conciliating these differences was offered, by making Yarmouth a member
of the cinque ports, but it failed of success: but in the year 1576 all
matters in dispute being adjusted to their mutual satisfaction it was at
the same time finally agreed, “That as every fishing vessel frequenting
this fair in antient times paid four pence, as a toll or custom, to the
bailiffs of the cinque ports; and that afterwards the said bailiffs
accepted from the bailiffs, of Great Yarmouth, in lieu thereof, the
annual sum of six pounds: Yet now, for the sake of restoring peace and
tranquility, it was further agreed by the said bailiffs of the cinque
ports to receive only three pounds ten shillings from the bailiffs of
Yarmouth, in full satisfaction for the above-mentioned toll.” Thus their
disputes being amicably adjusted, the contending parties preserved
afterwards a more friendly intercourse with each other, which continued
for some years, when the Yarmouth men refusing to pay the bailiffs of the
cinque ports the above-stipulated sum of three pounds ten shillings any
longer, the said bailiffs preferring peace to contention, and wishing to
avoid any farther disputes, discontinued coming to the fair at Yarmouth
in a public capacity any longer. {60}
The town of Yarmouth having now engrossed the whole of the herring
fishery usually carried on near their own town to themselves, it became,
in consequence thereof, the general rendezvous of all the vessels
employed in buying and selling those fish, of whom they demanded a toll
or custom; and having also obtained a charter, 46 Edward III for uniting
Kirkley road to the port of Yarmouth, and for extending their liberties
seven miles from the said port, were legally authorised to levy their
customs upon all such herrings as were bought and sold in the
above-mentioned road and within the said seven miles.
But the Yarmouth men, so far from being satisfied with the additional
emoluments arising from these acquisitions, envolved themselves in fresh
disputes with the men of Lowestoft, in the reign of Henry IV. respecting
their customs, which were revived again in the reign of queen Elizabeth,
(exclusive of the above-mentioned dispute with the portsmen in 1576), and
again about the year 1659, when they attempted to extend their liberties
beyond their legal bounds, and endeavoured to hinder the Lowestoft men
from purchasing any herrings either at or near their own town, unless
they paid the usual customs to Yarmouth; and grounded their claim on a
pretence, that the grant of the 46th of Edward III. which extended their
liberties seven leuks or miles from Yarmouth, was not to be measured from
the key of Yarmouth, but from the mouth of the haven; and consequently
would thereby wholly exclude the town of Lowestoft from buying herrings
even in the roads belonging to their own town, unless they first
submitted to pay such customs as should be claimed by the burgesses of
Yarmouth. They also endeavoured farther to show, that that part of the
sea called Kirkley road was opposite the parish of Kirkley, a town
situated about a mile to the south of Lowestoft, notwithstanding the real
name of that part of the sea is Pakefield bay; and that the seven leuks
prescribed in their charter as the boundary of their liberties, were not
miles but leagues.
These unreasonable and ill-grounded claims on the part of Yarmouth were
productive of a most violent rupture between the two towns; they even
proceeded so far (in order to defend what each of them thought to be
their just and legal privileges) as to fit out armed vessels, in
consequence of which many sharp engagements ensued, and much blood was
shed on both sides. At last the respective parties, being weary of
contention, agreed to lay the affair before the privy council, from
whence it was referred to the judges, and lastly to a hearing before the
house of lords where it was finally determined in favour of the town of
Lowestoft, as will be more fully shewn in the subsequent part of this
section.
The above circumstances being premised, I shall now proceed to make some
inquiries concerning the several charters granted to Yarmouth respecting
the herring fishery, how far the liberties contained in those charters
extended; and particularly, whether the charter which annexed Kirkley
road to Yarmouth haven tended to exclude the town of Lowestoft from the
privilege, which it had enjoyed from time immemorial, of buying and
selling herrings in the roads belonging to their own town.
I have observed before, that the great charter of liberties granted to
the town of Yarmouth, was that granted by King John, in the 9th year of
his reign. This king being distressed in fitting out a fleet of ships
for the recovery of his Norman dominions, lately lost, indulged them with
a charter, on condition, “that they should provide for him fifty-seven
ships for forty days, at their own charge, as often as the wars he was
engaged in should give him occasion to demand them.” {61a} By this
charter Yarmouth was created a free burgh, and the burgesses thereof were
invested with many immunities and privileges, to be held in fee-farm,
paying to him and his heirs, an annual rent of £55 for ever; for payment
thereof they were allowed only the customs arising out of the port; not
being authorised to receive any custom of goods bought or sold in the
market upon land at the time of the year. {61b}
In the reign of Henry III, when that prince exchanged the fee-farm of
Yarmouth and Lothingland with John de Baliol, for other lands in
Cheshire, which was very detrimental to the town of Yarmouth, on account
that ships with victuals might unlade on Lothingland side, and
particularly so, as fish was one of the principal articles from whence
their greatest profits arose; and, therefore, they petitioned the King in
the fortieth year of his reign, to grant them a new charter, whereby all
merchandise and wares, as well fish as other commodities, should be sold
at Yarmouth by the hands of the importers of them into the haven of
Yarmouth, whether found in the ships or without, etc.; which charter was
accordingly granted. But the Baliols (father and son) still continued to
take tolls and customs belonging to the port of Yarmouth, notwithstanding
its charters to the contrary, to the great prejudice of the burgesses,
who were either unable or unwilling to contest the matter with so
powerful an enemy as the King of Scots. But upon the said King
renouncing his homage to Edward I, all his English estates became
forfeited and, consequently, the said fee-farm of Yarmouth and
Lothingland, reverted again to the British monarch. The town Yarmouth
embraced this favourable opportunity of making an application to Edward
I. for a confirmation of the privileges granted to them by the charter of
Henry III, in which they were so fortunate as to succeed. Yet,
notwithstanding this charter of Edward I, it appears, by sundry records,
that their adversaries still persisted in their claims, and continued to
take customs, contrary to the liberties of the burgesses. The above
privileges were afterwards confirmed by Edward II, and also again by the
1st of Edward III; and in the 6th of Edward III. they were again
confirmed by a special charter, after a long and tedious suit with the
Earl of Richmond (the proprietor of the fee-farm of Lothingland, given to
him by Edward I) about levying the customs, etc., in the haven of
Yarmouth.
During these litigious disputes respecting the privileges of Yarmouth and
the customs to be levied on vessels frequenting that port, the haven
belonging to that town became so obstructed by sand-banks, formed at its
entrance by the easterly winds, that the mouth of it extended to the
south of Corton before it discharged itself into the ocean; and so many
shelves were formed therein, especially between the 10th and 20th of
Edward III., as rendered the navigation so very dangerous, that no ships
of any considerable burthen could enter it with safety; and therefore the
inhabitants of Yarmouth, in the 20th year of the reign of Edward III were
under the necessity of petitioning that King, viz., for liberty to cut a
new mouth to the haven nearer to Yarmouth, opposite to Corton, which
petition was immediately granted. This haven at a considerable expense,
continued the space of twenty-six years, viz., till the 46th of Edward
III, when it again began to be obstructed with sand banks that no ships
could enter therein, but were obliged to unlade their goods and
merchandise in an adjoining place called Kirkley road.
It was a matter of much controversy, during this contest, to ascertain
with certainty where the place called Kirkley road was situated. The
Yarmouth men insisting that it was opposite the village of Kirkley, about
a mile to the south of Lowestoft; and the Lowestoft men as strenuously
asserting, that the real name of that part of the sea near Kirkley was
Pakefield bay; that in consequence of the town of Kirkley having been
formerly a town of considerable trade in the herring fishery, it gave to
all the sea thereabouts, even as far as Yarmouth, the general name of
Kirkley seas; part of which, namely, that which was situated a little to
the south of where the haven’s mouth then was, was called Kirkley road,
and was then annexed to Yarmouth haven.
In the old manuscript view of Lowestoft referred to in a former section
(late in the possession of Thomas Martin, of Palgrave, in Suffolk)
Kirkley road is placed between Lowestoft and Corton; and in the old map
of the coast, given in Garianonum, the situation of Kirkley road is the
same.
It was also alleged by the Yarmouth men, that the seven miles, the
boundary of their liberties, granted by this new charter, was to be
measured, not from the key, but from the haven’s mouth, which would
exclude the town of Lowestoft from buying herrings, unless they paid the
customs to Yarmouth; the Lowestoft men insisting, that the seven miles
should be measured from the key at Yarmouth, and not from the haven’s
mouth.
These declarations on the part of Lowestoft will receive further
confirmation from the following extract from the town book, taken from
Cawden:
About the year of our Lord 1100, about 500 years past, it pleased God
to lay the first foundation of the east town of Yarmouth into firm
land, even out of the main sea. Which place was then called and
known by the name of Sardike sand, and Sardike shore; and in a short
time it proved to be a fit and commodious place for a town to be
built, meet for seafaring men to inhabit in. And by the permission
of many noble kings in this land, his majesties progenitors, many did
resort thither, and began to build the same, and to enclose it with a
stone wall on the east side of the town (the haven being on the west
side) inasmuch that within a short time the same grew populous.
And long before Yarmouth town was incorporated, the barons of the
five ports did yearly hold a free fair in the three towns of Yarmouth
(that is to say) Easton, Weston, and Southton, beginning the said
fair on the feast of St. Michael and so continued forty days
together.
And by the authority of the King, they did then use to make their
repair thither on purpose for the governing of the said fair. And in
those days was yearly sent from the brotherhood of the five ports,
and the antient towns, nine or ten bailiffs who governed the fair.
And it is to be noted, that long before any liberties were granted to
Yarmouth, the towns of Lowestoft and Kirkley in the county of
Suffolk, were built, and populously inhabited; and the then town of
Kirkley being the greatest town of account, and the most antient upon
the coast, and being a haven town, (the place now called Kirkley
haven was the antient haven), before that Yarmouth was Yarmouth, and
thereupon the whole fishing seas upon the confines of Suffolk and
Norfolk, take the name of Kirkley seas.
And to this day the seas upon those coasts are called or known by the
French fishermen coming there to fish, by the name of Kirkley seas.
And long since, before Yarmouth was incorporated there was such
trading and merchandising of herrings at Lowestoft, and the same was
by the Yarmouth men so much envied that civil wars subsisted for a
long time between them, with much bloodshed, until it pleased God to
take the matter into his own hands, who ended the strife with such a
great mortality of people, that there died of the plague in Yarmouth
7,000 persons, and then the wars ceased.
The dreadful pestilence here alluded to, first began in the northern
parts of Asia in 1346; from whence it passed into Greece, from thence
into Italy and France, and in the beginning of August 1348, broke out in
Dorsetshire: many who were well in the morning died before noon. About
the feast of All Saints it reached London, making dreadful destruction;
and about Christmas, Yarmouth and the neighbouring parts felt its direful
effects. It immediately spread itself over the nation, and raged so
violently in 1348 and 1349, that there scarcely remained the tenth part
of the people alive in most places.
His Majesty, Edward III. after being duly informed of the circumstance
relative to the affair of the Kirkley road, was pleased, after an
application of six years continuance, and after the greatest opposition
being made thereto from Lowestoft and other neighbouring towns, who
reaped great advantages from vessels discharging their goods in Kirkley
road, and were hitherto exempted from paying the customs to Yarmouth, to
unite the said road of Kirkley into the town and port of Yarmouth
(Kirkley road united to Yarmouth haven, 46 Edward III), upon paying him
and his successors one hundred shillings yearly; and to grant use to the
burgesses full power to receive the like duties there as at Yarmouth for
ever. {63}
It may be necessary here to inform the reader, that there are two
remarkable circumstances in this charter; the one is, that Kirkley is
there represented as a certain place in the high seas near the entrance
of the haven of the town; the other that the seven leuks to which the
liberties were then extended, are described as issuing from the town of
Yarmouth, and not from the haven’s mouth. It is proper to mention these
particulars because towards the end of this section it will appear that
there was much altercation between Yarmouth and Lowestoft respecting the
true situation of Kirkley road; and also, whether the seven leuks or
miles were to be measured from the key, or from the haven’s mouth.
The form observed by government, previous to their granting this charter,
was, first to issue a writ of _ad quod dampnum_, directed to the
escheator of Norfolk and Suffolk; then followed a mandate to the sheriff;
afterwards inquisitions were taken to examine the premises; and lastly
the charter itself was granted. Subjoin are the writ, the mandate, the
inquisitions, and the charter.
THE WRIT OF AD QUOD DAMPNUM.
Edward, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, to his beloved and faithful John de Rockewode, his escheator
in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, Reginald de Eccles, and
Edmund Gurnay, greeting. Know ye, that we have assigned you, and two
of you, to enquire by the oath of good and lawful men of the counties
aforesaid, as well within the liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter may be better known, if it be to the damage or
prejudice of us or others if we grant to our beloved the burgesses
and good men of the town of Great Yarmouth, a certain place in the
sea, near the entrance of the haven of the same town, called Kirkley
road; so that after such our grant, that place to the said haven they
may annex and unite, and if so annexed and united, to hold and to
have of us and our heirs, as parcel of the same haven, together with
the haven aforesaid, to them and their successors, burgesses of the
same town, for relief of the town aforesaid, and for an aid of the
farm which to us and our heirs, they are holden, for the same town
and haven annually to pay, by the same services by which the town and
haven aforesaid were before holden of us; and that all ships and
boats to the same place of Kirkley road coming or to come, and from
thence going or to go, may there as freely lade or unlade, and the
customs and all other profits thereof receive and have, as before in
the said port they have done, had and received, or have been used or
ought to do, have and receive, without hindrance or impediment of us
or our heirs, or others whomsoever for ever. And also if it be to
the loss or prejudice of us or others, then to what loss, or what
prejudice of others, and of whom, and in what manner, how and of whom
the aforesaid place called Kirkley road is holden, and by what
service, and in what manner, and how; and how much it is worth by the
year in all issues and profits, according to the real value of the
same; and how far distant from the entrance of the haven aforesaid;
and who occupies or occupy that place, and receives and receive, the
issues and profits thereof; by what right, title, how, and in what
manner. And therefore we command you, that at certain days and
places which you or two of you shall appoint for this business, you
may make diligent enquiry, upon all and singular the premises in what
manner soever; and it distinctly and openly make to us, into our
chancery, under the seals of you, or two of you distinctly, and
openly send without delay, and this writ.
For we have commanded our sheriff of the same counties, that at
certain days and places which you shall make known to him, he cause
to come before you, so many, and so good and lawful men of his
bailiwick, as well within the liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter in the premises may be better known and examined into.
THE MANDATE TO THE SHERIFF.
Edward, by the grace of God, King of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, to the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, greeting,—Whereas we
have assigned our beloved and faithful John de Rokewode, our
escheator in the counties aforesaid, Reginald de Eccles, and Edmund
de Gurnay, and two of them to enquire by the oath of good and lawful
men of the counties aforesaid, as well within the liberties as
without, by whom the truth of the matter shall be better known, if it
be to the loss or prejudice of us or others, if we grant to our
beloved the burgesses and good men of our town of Great Yarmouth,
that they, a certain place in the sea, near the entrance to the haven
of the town aforesaid, may annex and unite the same to the haven,
and, it so annexed and united, as parcel of the same haven, hold and
have to them and their successors, of us and our heirs for ever. And
also to do and accomplish some other things contained in our
commission to them thereof made, as in the same our commission it is
more fully contained. We command you, that at certain days and
places which the same John, Reginald, and Edmund, or two of them,
shall make known to you, you cause to come before them, or two of
them, so many, and such good and lawful men of the counties
aforesaid, as well within the liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter shall be better known, and inquired into, and have this
writ. Witness myself at Westminster, the 14th day of February, in
the 44th year of our reign of England, and of France the 31st.
THE FIRST INQUISITION.
An inquisition taken at Waybrede, in the county of Suffolk, on
Thursday next after the feast of St. James the Apostle, in the 46th
year of the reign of King Edward the Third, after the conquest before
Reginald de Eccles, and Edmund Gurnay, justices of the lord the king,
assigned by commission of the lord the king, to inquire if it be to
the damage or prejudice of the lord the king or others, that the lord
the king should grant to the burgesses and good men of the town of
Great Yarmouth, a certain place in the seas near the entrance of the
haven of the same town, called Kirkley road; by the oath of Theobald
Osborn, John Pynn, Thomas Crane, Bennett de Reading, Thomas Attie
Wood, William Child, William Nicholas, John de Ireland, Robert
Barker, William Danes, Richard Sallern, and Richard Allred, who say
upon their oath that it is not to the damage nor prejudice of the
lord the king nor others: that the lord the king should grant to the
aforesaid burgesses and good men of the town aforesaid, the aforesaid
place in the sea near the entrance of the haven of that town, called
Kirkley road, and that place to the said town and haven to be annexed
and united, and so annexed and united, to the haven aforesaid, to
have and to hold to them and their successors, burgesses of the same
town for ever; for the relief and support of the aforesaid town, and
aid of the farm of the same town which they have paid, and still do
pay, to the lords the king and his heirs annually. They say also,
that the said place is main sea, and nothing distant from the
entrance of the haven aforesaid, and so has been, from time
immemorial. And they say, that the said place is not holden of any
man, but has been the property of the lord the king, as main sea; nor
is there any profit thence to the lord the king or others annually
rendered.
And further they say, that it is not to the damage nor prejudice of
the lord the king, nor others, that all ships and boats to the same
place coming, or to come, or from thence, going, or to go, may there
as freely in every case, lade and unlade; and the customs and other
profits of the aforesaid burgh thence may receive and have, as
formerly in the said haven they have received and had; and to make
executions touching their liberties as freely as in the said haven
they have done, and used to do. And they say, that it is worth
nothing a year, since nobody has received, nor ever occupied any
customs or profits thereto, because it is in the high sea.
Being asked why it is not to the damage of the lord the king or
others, if the lord the king grant the place aforesaid in the manner
aforesaid? they answer, that the entrance of the haven aforesaid is
of late so dry that no ship laden there near the haven aforesaid can
enter, unless first in the place aforesaid, called Kirkley road, it
be unladed; nor will it there pay any customs to the lord the king or
others. And they say, that the said town of Great Yarmouth cannot be
supported, nor pay the farm to the lord the king, unless by the aid
of a grant of the lord the king, to receive customs of the ships and
boats in the said place, coming, entering, and going out, in the
manner wherein they have received them in the haven aforesaid. In
witness whereof the aforesaid jurors to these presents have put their
seals.
THE SECOND INQUISITION.
An inquisition taken at Attlebridge, in the county of Norfolk, on
Monday next after the feast of St. Peter in chains, in the 46th year
of the reign of king Edward the Third, after the conquest, before
Reginald de Eccles and Edmund Gurnay, justices by commission of the
lord the king, assigned to inquire, whether it be to the damage or
prejudice of the lord the king or others, that the lord the king
should grant the burgesses and good men of the town of Great
Yarmouth, a certain place in the sea, near the entrance of the havan
of the same town, called Kirkley road, by the oaths of Richard de
Martham, John de Westly, George Seafowl, John de Berking, Ralph
Noreman, William Arnold, Nicholas Bannok, John Baxter, James Atte
Church, Richard de Kent, John Dawys, and Edmund Cooke; who say, ect.
THE CHARTER FOR UNITING KIRKLEY ROAD TO THE
HAVEN OF YARMOUTH.
Edward, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, and Duke of Aqitain, etc.—Know ye, that we, willing for the
aid and relief of the town of Great Yarmouth, to shew more abundant
grace to the burgesses and good men of the same town, have given and
granted for us and our heirs to the same burgesses and good men, for
an aid and relief of the same town, and for 100s. which they and
their successors, at the terms of St. Michael and Easter, by equal
portions (for an increment and augmentation of the farm of £55 which
the same burgesses and good men are holden annually to pay us and our
heirs, into the same exchequer, for a certain place in the high sea,
near the entrance of the haven of the town aforesaid), should pay
every year to us and our heirs, into the same exchequer, for a
certain place in the high sea near the entrance of the haven of the
town aforesaid called Kirkley road; and have annexed and united that
place to the said town and haven; to have and to hold unto the same
burgesses and good men and their sucessors, of us and our heirs, that
place, annexed to the said town and haven for ever. Willing and
granting, for us and our heirs, to the same burgesses and good men,
that they and their successors for ever may have in the said place of
Kirkley road, all and every the liberties and quittances by the
charters of our progenitors and confirmation of us to them formerly
granted, as they the same liberties and quittances in the said town,
by virtue of the charters and confirmation aforesaid, ought to have;
and may have and receive of all ships and boats which shall happen to
come to the said place of Kirkley road, and in part or wholly unlade,
the same customs which they, according to the liberties aforesaid,
should have, if they at the said town should arrive, and there in
part or wholly unlade. We have also granted, for us and our heirs,
to the said burgesses and good men, and for ever confirmed to the
same and their successors, that no ship, nor any boat, should be
laden or unladen at any town or place upon the sea coast, within
seven leuks distant from the said town of Great Yarmouth, by any
person whomsoever, of herrings or any other merchandises, unless the
ship, boat, or herrings, and also the merchandises, were that
person’s proper goods only and not any other’s, except at the said
town of Great Yarmouth, or in the haven of the same, or at the place
of Kirkley road above said. And also, that in the time of the
fishing and fair of herrings, no fair should be holden, nor any
selling or buying, on account of merchandising be made in any place
within the space of seven leuks about the town aforesaid, but only at
the same town of Great Yarmouth, or in the haven of the same town, of
herrings or other merchandise whatsoever. And we strictly prohibit,
for us and our heirs, that no one within the space aforesaid of seven
leuks, presume to lade or unlade any other ship or boat than his
proper own, and of his own proper herrings, and other merchandises,
anywhere, but only at the same town of Great Yarmouth, or in the
haven of the same, or at the place of Kirkley road, or in the time
aforesaid, to hold any fair, or to sell or buy any herrings or other
wares, on account of merchandising, but only at the said town of
Great Yarmouth, or in the haven of the same upon forfeiture of the
ships and boats so to be laded or unladed, or from that time to be
put to sale in such fairs or elsewhere, by way of merchandising,
contrary to the said prohibition, to be applied to the uses of us and
our heirs. Of which forfeitures aforesaid we will, and have granted,
for us and our heirs, that the bailiffs of the said, town of Great
Yarmouth, for the time being, may and shall enquire from time to
time, and take them into custody, and cause them to be kept for our
use, and answer to us and our heirs, thereupon into the exchequer
aforesaid, every year, at the term of St. Michael and Easter.
And all our letters whatsoever, to the town of Lowestoft or to the
men of the same, contrary to any of these premises, made by us, as to
such contrariety, we do revoke.
Witness myself, at Westminster the 22nd day of August, in the 46th
year of our reign of England.
By virtue of this charter, the Yarmouth men not only obtained the
privilege of having Kirkley road united to the town and haven of
Yarmouth, but also to receive the same customs there which had usually
been collected before in the port of Yarmouth, and were also farther
empowered to seize the ships, goods, etc., of such as bought or sold
within seven leuks of it, under certain restrictions mentioned in the
said charter.
The word leuk, leuga, or leuca, is liable to various definitions.
Blomefield says, that he has often rendered the word league, but must
inform his readers, that he does not mean by it our league of three
miles, nor agree with Mr. Bailey in making the distance one mile only
(though he says it is so used in Domesday), being almost certain, the
leuga in Domesday signifies two miles, or thereabouts, for that answers
to the generality of places that I have examined, as to the extent, which
to me seems the best way of judging such a point; and upon looking into
the various glossaries, I find that several of them concur in the same
opinion; for which reason, wherever the word occurs I mean by it two
miles and no more. Nevertheless, in the continuation of Blomefield, by
Parkin, vol. V. it is said, “In the rolls of the King’s Bench it appears
that the Bishop of Norwich had a fair at East Dereham, and that the town
was sixteen leuca distant from that city; by which it is plain that a
leuca was then (in 1277) accounted only one mile, Dereham being exactly
sixteen measured miles from Norwich.” But whatever may be the opinion of
Blomefield on this word, Swinden confines the admeasurement of a leuk to
be one mile only; probably upon the authority of Domesday and other
antient records. At the annual proclaiming of Yarmouth fair, the seven
leuks are denominated to be seven miles. And in the statute of the 13th
of Richard II. for the extent of the King’s Government, the word implies
a single mile. Also, in the patent of the Knight marshal, for the extent
of the government of the king’s household within the verge, the word
leuca stands adjudged to be miles, eight furlongs to every mile, and to
begin at the funnel of the chimney in the king’s lodging.
As the privilege which the town of Lowestoft and other places had long
enjoyed, of being exempt from the customs demanded for the herrings
bought and sold in Kirkley road (which would have been due had they
merchandised in Yarmouth haven), was now lost, they consequently suffered
much inconvenience from the granting of this charter, as they now became
liable to all the customs due to Yarmouth for buying and selling herrings
in Kirkley road, the same as though they were bought and sold in the
haven. The granting of this charter, therefore, excited much animosity,
and occasioned many disputes between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, as the
latter was unwilling to relinquish their antient privilege; and
accordingly, soon after, we find several men belonging to Lowestoft
indicted at Yarmouth for not complying with the charter. The Lowestoft
men, for trial of the premises, removed the suit, by writ of certiorari,
into the Court of Chancery, where the affair was finally determined in
favour of the burgesses of Yarmouth. The case was as follows:—
An indictment was brought by the burgesses of Yarmouth against John
Botile and others, of Lowestoft, for that they, on Friday next after
the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, in the 46th year of the reign
of Edward III. bought of John Trample, of Ostend, an alien, in the
said place called Kirkley road, which is within seven leuks of Great
Yarmouth, twenty-five lasts of new herrings value fifty pounds.
Against this charge the defendants returned only evasive answers,
pretending that they knew not that the aforesaid place of Kirkley road
was annexed to the port of Great Yarmouth, nor that there was a fair kept
there, nor that the said place was in the county of Norfolk. However,
these were pleas which had too little the appearance of truth to be
admitted in their favour, and therefore they were found guilty of acting
contrary to the above charter, and of infringing on the liberties of
Yarmouth. Whereupon the said John Botile and others being convinced of
their error, in refusing or evading the payment of the legal customs due
to the town of Yarmouth, prayed the favour of the court, that the affair
might be ended; and putting themselves upon the grace of the lord the
king, they accordingly were fined and discharged.
In the year 1368, one John Lawes was hanged for exporting seven sacks of
wool out of Kirkley road without paying the custom to Yarmouth.
As soon as this contentious business was decided, the inhabitants of
Lowestoft, in the 50th year of Edward III., together with other commons,
petitioned the parliament then holden to have the said grant or charter
repealed; alleging that it opposed the common interest of the kingdom.
For this and other reasons specified in the said petition, the Parliament
repealed the charter for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven.
The grant of Kirkley road repealed the 50th of Edward III.
In the Parliament roll of the 50th year of Edward III. amongst the
petitions of the commonalty of England, is the following:—
Also be it remembered, that, as well, at the request of the commons
of England, as at the suit of certain people of the town of
Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, made in this Parliament, the
charter of our lord the king, whereby he has lately granted to his
burgesses of the town of Great Yarmouth, that a place in the sea,
called Kirkley road, should be united and annexed to the port of the
said town of Great Yarmouth for ever, be totally repealed and
revoked, in respect to that new grant, as the thing was done contrary
to the common profit of the kingdom; always saving entirely to the
said burgesses, and to their successors, all their other privileges,
franchises, and customs, granted and confirmed to them by the same
our lord the king, or any other of his progenitors, with the clause
of licet to them, granted by the same our lord the king.
Out of the roll of the parliament holden at Westminister, on Monday next
after the feast of St. George, in the 50th year of the reign of King
Edward III. is the following:
Also the commons of the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge,
Lincoln, Northampton, Bedford, Bucks, Leicester, and other of the
commons, pray, That whereas a greater scarcity and want of herrings
have been in the said counties, and elsewhere throughout the whole
kingdom, since your charter was granted to the burgesses of Yarmouth,
that no herrings, nor other merchandise whatever, should be sold
within seven leuks of the said town of Yarmouth, during the fair of
the said town, in the time of the fishery, than ever was before; and
because no herrings might be made and sold elsewhere but at the said
town, to which no cart nor horse can approach without passage twice
by water, {67} to the great hindrance of carriage; and the greatest
part of herrings has been taken by strange fishers, in the time of
the fishery, who would not come to the said town; because they could
not sell their merchandises but at the will of the said burgesses,
and that at a certain price and quantity. That it would please your
highness to command that the said charter be repealed; and that
herrings may be bought, made, and sold in places where it was wont
before the grant of the said charter; for having a better price in
time to come, and for common profit of the whole kingdom.
Whereupon the said charter was repealed, as appears by the following
letters patent:—
Edward, by the grace of God, King of England, etc.—Know ye, that we,
the liberties and privileges to the burgesses and good men of the
town of Great Yarmouth, lately so by us given and granted, at the
suit and voluntary clamour of certain people, alledging that those
liberties and privileges have been and are contrary to the profit of
the republic, and to us and our people prejudicial and hurtful, in
our parliament holden at Westminister, on the morrow of St. George,
in the 50th year of our reign, with the assent of the prelates,
earls, barons, nobles, and other great men, in the same parliament
being, have revoked, and totally made void.
Witness myself, at Westminister, etc.
Soon after the repeal of this charter, Edward III. died; and a commission
of _ad quod dampnum_ was sued out by the burgesses of Yarmouth,
concerning the said road, and directed to William de Ufford, earl of
Suffolk; John Cavendish, William de Witchingham, William de Elmham, John
de Sutton, Roger de Boys, and William Sibilys; dated 12th day of April,
in the 1st of Richard II. alledging, that they were unable to pay the
fee-farm rent tenths, and fifteenths, and to support the navy which they
maintained in time of war, etc., unless they enjoyed the liberties
granted to the burgesses by Edward, the late king of England. By virtue
of this commission, and in consequence thereof, an inquisition was taken
at Yarmouth, on Friday next after St. Faith, in the 2nd of Richard II.
which certified that Yarmouth was a place of defence, and able to resist
the enemies, if it be supplied with a sufficient number of forces; that
it is a good port for supplying vessels with provisions and necessaries
during the fishing season; and that the said town of Yarmouth hath a
certain port, the entrance of which is much in decay. There was also
another inquisition taken at Lowestoft the day following, which declared
that Lowestoft is situated upon dry land, by the sea, and is not
enclosed, nor has strength of itself to resist the enemies; but that the
uniting of Kirkley road to the port of Yarmouth was to the damage of the
men of Lowestoft. The result of these inquisitions was that a survey of
both the towns being taken by the commissioners, and laid before the
parliament held at Gloucester, the Wednesday before St. Luke, 1738, it
was presented, that, upon the whole, the uniting of Kirkley road to the
port of Yarmouth might be prejudicial to the neighbouring towns, yet it
would be advantageous to the community at large; and thereupon the former
grant, which had been repealed was again re-granted to Yarmouth, by a
private act or ordinance of his parliament, and confirmed by a charter
dated the 25th of November, in the 2nd of Richard II.
Upon proclaiming of this charter, by the under-sheriff of the county, at
Lowestoft, a riot was made by the inhabitants of that town; and in
consequence thereof, an inquisition was ordered to be taken, to enquire
into the causes of this disturbance, but it does not appear what ensued
thereupon.
Before the invention of printing, charters, statutes, etc., were
proclaimed by the sheriff in every county by the king’s writ.
An inquisition taken before John Harsyk, sheriff of Norfolk, on Monday
next after the nativity of the blessed virgin Mary, at Little Yarmouth,
in the second year of the reign of King Richard the second, after the
conquest by the oath of Roger de Hakenham, Walter Read, William Barker,
and other jurors, etc.
Who say upon their oath, that whereas the aforesaid sheriff had sent
certain liberties, granted by the aforesaid lord the king, to the
bailiffs and commonalty of the town of Great Yarmouth, by John de
Foxley, his under sheriff, by virtue of a certain order of the lord
the king, to him directed on that account, to cause them to be
proclaimed, viz., on the feast of the apostles Philip and James last
past: (commonly called May day, on which a fair at Lowestoft was
held, as it is also now); on which day the aforesaid under sheriff,
at Lowestoft intended to proclaim the aforesaid liberties according
to the form thereof, and there openly shewed the letters patent of
the lord the king; on that account came Martin Terry, Stephen
Shelford, Andrew de Lound, Robert Shincale, J. Cote, Roger Caley,
Richard Gall, Thomas Smyth, John Smyth, Thomas Murring, Thomas
Stoneman, and William his brother, Henry Freberne, and Emma his wife,
J. Keene, Henry Boocher, of Lowestoft; also John de Rookesburgh, John
Spencer, and Alice his wife, with a greater company of men and women
of the town aforesaid, of whose names they are ignorant, who, by the
abetment and procurement of William Hammell, John Blower, Thomas de
Wade, Richard Skinner, William Lacye, etc., they violently resisted
and hindered him; some saying to the same sheriff, they would not
suffer him to depart; others forcing his letters from him, and so
with dangerous and reproachful words, etc., saying that if he dared
to come there for any execution of the lord the king, he should not
escape. That for fear of death he durst not execute the writ
aforesaid. And they drove him then and there with a multitude of
rioters, with hue and cry, out of the town, casting stones at the
heads of his men and servants, to the pernicious example and contempt
of the lord the king and against his peace.
In witness whereof, etc.
It appears, that in the 4th of Richard II. the commons of Suffolk and
Norfolk, and all the other counties of England, petitioned parliament,
that whereas it had been formerly ordained by statute that every subject
of the realm might buy and sell without disturbance in city, burgh,
sea-port, and elsewhere, throughout all the kingdom; and if any charters
or patents were granted to the contrary, they should be holden null,
which statute was confirmed at the last parliament holden at Gloucester;
and notwithstanding the said statute, a charter in the same parliament
was granted to the people of Yarmouth, that none should buy or sell round
the said town by seven leuks, etc. These petitions had their desired
effect; for we find, that during the sittings of this parliament, the
inquisitions taken in the first and second of Richard II. were so far
reprehended, that an order was then given for a new commission, and that
it should be more uprightly conducted; and the burgesses of Yarmouth had
a penal command to make no disturbance in the mean time. Accordingly, in
the 5th of Richard II. a commission was solemnly awarded with a quorum,
and was set upon the Monday next after St. Matthew, the apostle, the same
year, in Suffolk and the Thursday after in Norfolk, by the then lord
chief justice of England and other great commissioners, who viewed the
place, and did take their inquisitions, the one held at Lowestoft, the
other at Norwich, before Robert Trisilian, John Argentium, and John
Holcome, on the oaths of divers, knights, and other special gentlemen of
both counties, whose presentment was certified in chancery, and
afterwards laid before the parliament held in November following; and an
act was made, that the new grants should be repealed for ever, and shall
never be re-granted; that the charter should be called in and cancelled,
and should also remain in the tower under special causes thereupon
written, why it was so cancelled. {69a} Notwithstanding this Act, the
burgesses renewed their petitions to have their charter re-granted:
insomuch, that Richard II. in the sixth year of his reign, in order to
form a new judgment of the affair, came to Yarmouth, and viewed the
premises himself; and soon after, namely, in the eight year of his reign,
the burgesses obtained a new grant, dated the 20th February, of all their
former privileges till the meeting of the next parliament.
As these inquisitions tend to cast considerable light on this complicated
affair, they are inserted hereunder:
The determinations of all the Inquisitions taken before Robert Trisilian,
{69b} John Argentium, and John Holcome, the one at the town of Lowestoft,
in Suffolk, and the other at Norwich, by the oaths of divers, knights,
and other great gentlemen of both counties.
THE FIRST INQUISITION,
TAKEN AT LOWESTOFT, THE MONDAY AFTER THE FEAST OF ST. MATTHEW
THE APOSTLE, 5 RICHARD II.
That the new liberties and privileges to the burgesses of Yarmouth in
a certain place called Kirkley road, is prejudicial and hurtful to
the commonalty of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and all other
counties, etc.
1st. For that the liberties and privileges aforesaid be contrary to
common right, and also to the statute made for the common profit of
the realm of England; that is to say, that every one of the realm of
England may buy and sell without let in city, burgh, port of the sea,
and elsewhere, through all the realm of England: and if deeds or
patents be granted to the contrary, they shall be of no force; which
statute was confirmed in the last Parliament at Gloucester, holden in
the time of our lord the king that now is.
2nd. And also, that the ships anchoring in the said place of Kirkley
road, as often as a contrary wind come, they can by no means enter
into the port of Great Yarmouth; but are compelled to cast their
herrings into the sea.
3rd. And also for that the said burgesses of the town of Great
Yarmouth, by force of the said liberties and privileges to them of
new so given and granted, will not suffer the said commonalty of the
realm of England to buy or sell any victuals or merchandise, at any
time of the year in the said place of Kirkley road.
4th. And also the said commonalty do sustain and support great
griefs and hinderances by color of the liberties and privileges
aforesaid in this behalf.
5th. Also they say, that there is a great space of the high sea
between the said place called Kirkley road, and the entry of the said
port of Yarmouth, by reason of which space many ships may come from
the main sea into the said port of Great Yarmouth at their liberty,
and also go out; which place called Kirkley road, is in the county of
Suffolk, and before the grant of the liberties and privileges
aforesaid, was, and yet is, parcel of the same manor, etc.; and by
all the time aforesaid have, used to have, and of right ought to
have, all the wreck of the sea happening in the said place called
Kirkley road. Also they say, that the ships loaden with herrings can
return twice from Kirkley road into the sea to fish, whilst the chips
loaden with herrings going to the town of Yarmouth can but one in the
same time unload an return into the sea to fish.
6th. Also they say, that before the new grant of the liberties and
privileges aforesaid, all the ships and boats loaden with herrings,
and other victuals and merchandise, have used at their pleasure to
come as well to the port of the town of Great Yarmouth, as to the
said place called Kirkley road, without any manner of let, and to
unload their herrings, victuals, and other merchandise, as will in
one place as in the other; and have sold the same unto any man of the
realm of England willing to buy freely without any let or challenge
of any man.
7th. And at the same time it was the common profit, as well of the
commonalty of the realm of England, as of the said town of Yarmouth.
8th. Also they say, that the greatest commodity should be to all the
commonalty of the realm of England; that all ships and boats laden
with any victuals and merchandise might come as well to the port of
the town of Yarmouth, as to the said place of Kirkley road, freely at
their wills; and their victuals and merchandise might unload as well
in the one place as in the other; and the same without let of any
person, might sell to any of the realm of England that would buy the
same.
9th. And they further understand, that the men of Great Yarmouth may
sustain and bear towards our lord the king all charges which they did
sustain and bear before the granting of the liberties and privileges
aforesaid, and maintain the said town, although the same liberties
and privileges shall be revoked.
In witness, etc.
THE SECOND INQUISITION,
TAKEN AT NORWICH THE THURSDAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF ST. MICHAEL,
5 RICHARD II.
That it should be to the commodity of the commonalty of the counties
of Norfolk and Suffolk, and all other counties of the realm of
England:
1st. That all the ships and boats laden with herrings, and other
victuals and merchandise, coming to the parts of Norfolk and Suffolk,
upon the sea coast might unload their herrings, victuals and
merchandise, wheresoever they please, and the same without let of any
person, to sell to any of the realm of England that will buy the
same.
2nd. And that all the realm might lawfully buy the herrings,
victuals, and merchandise aforesaid, wheresoever within the counties
aforesaid. Also they say, that the burgesses of the town of Great
Yarmouth, by force of the liberties and privileges aforesaid, to them
of new so given and granted, do not suffer the said commonalty of the
realm of England, at any time of the year, to buy or sell any
victuals or merchandise in the said place of Kirkley road.
3rd. And that whensoever any ships or boats apply themselves into
Kirkley road, laden with herrings, they may twice unlade again and
return to fish; whereas the ships or boats applying into the port of
the town of Yarmouth, they can but once in the same time unload and
again return to sea to fish.
4th. Also they say that the commonalty do sustain and bear very
great griefs, damages, and hindrances, by colour of the liberties and
privileges aforesaid.
5th. Also they say, that the said place of Kirkley road lyeth in the
main sea over against the town of Lowestoft, in Suffolk, and is
distant from the town of Yarmouth ten miles.
6th. Also they say, that all the ships and boats laden or unladen,
often, and when they come into the sea between the entry of the port
of Yarmouth and the place of Kirkley road, if the wind be not
contrary, they may at their wills enter into the port and also the
said place of Kirkley road.
7th. Also they understand, that the men of Yarmouth may sustain and
bear all charges towards our lord the king, which before the granting
of the liberties of the new charter aforesaid they did bear, and
maintain their town, besides that charge that they render yearly for
the said charter to them newly granted, although the said charter be
revoked and made void.
8th. Also they say, that if the wind do serve for the ships, that
they cannot come to the said town of Great Yarmouth, sometime it
happeneth that they must cast their herrings into the sea for
oldness, if that they may not lawfully deliver their herrings at the
place of Kirkley road.
In Witness, etc.
The charter for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth Haven was repealed the
second time, the 5th of Richard II. The grant restored again till the
meeting of Parliament to consider of it, the eighth of Richard II.
At the meeting of parliament, which was in the ninth of Richard II. the
last grant of the eighth of Richard II. was, by an ordinance of that
Parliament, dated the 18th day of December, in the ninth of Richard II.
annulled, and the act of repeal, in the fifth of Richard II. continued in
force.
The last grant annulled the ninth of Richard II. and the repeal of the
fifth Richard II. continued in force.
But notwithstanding all the allegations, statutes, etc., to the contrary,
the burgesses of Yarmouth, by their petitions, etc., in the subsequent
Parliament, holden at Westminster, in the tenth of Richard II, recovered
all their former liberties and grants, by an act or ordinance of
Parliament, which privileges, etc., were confirmed by a charter under the
great seal of England, which charter has never since been repealed, but
continues in force to this day.
After the re-granting of the said liberties and customs to the town of
Yarmouth, by parliament, and confirmation of the same by charter, under
the great seal of England, the burgesses collected the same customs in
Kirkley road that had been usually paid in the port and haven of
Yarmouth, without any molestation or interruption whatever. For after
this legal decision of this litigious and long-contested dispute, the
Lowestoft men were compelled peaceably to submit to any inconvenience it
might subject them to and, consequently, were under the necessity of
farming of the town of Yarmouth the customs belonging to Kirkley road, at
a certain annual rent, as the safest and most advantageous mode of
proceeding.
FARMERS OF KIRKLEY ROAD.
Rent per Annum.
£. s. d.
1393. In the 17th of Richard II. the 23 0 0
men of Lowestoft paid
1394. In the 18th of Richard II. the 26 0 0
farmer not recorded paid
1396. In the 20th of Richard II. 26 0 0
William Spencer paid
1408. In the 20th of Richard II. a 1 0 0
fisher of Flanders paid for a
forfeiture in Kirkley road
1410. In the 10th of Henry IV. the 8 0 0
farm of Kirkley road was paid
weekly by Simon Thirkeld,
bailiff of Kirkley road
1414. In the 2nd of Henry V. John 8 0 0
Waller paid
1417. In the 5th of Henry V. the men 8 0 0
of Lowestoft paid
1420. In the 8th of Henry V. Thomas 4 0 0
Couehithe’s hosts, for a
trespass and rescue committed in
Kirkley road paid
1433. In the 12th of Henry VI. the 4 0 0
farmer’s name not recorded paid
1434. In the 13th of Henry VI. the 3 16 8
farmer’s name not recorded paid
1438. In the 17th of Henry VI. John 3 0 0
Davy, merchant, paid
1442. In the 21st of Henry VI. John 7 6 8
Folvile, of Lowestoft, paid
1445. In the 24th of Henry VI. 4 13 4
farmer’s name not recorded paid
Sometimes the water-bailiff collected the rents, but it does not appear
that Kirkley road was ever farmed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or
afterwards.
Nevertheless, about the beginning of the reign of Henry IV. fresh
disputes arose between the said towns, respecting the manner of
collecting the said customs; the Lowestoft men endeavouring to deprive
the burgesses of Yarmouth of their just and legal dues; and also indicted
several officers and others belonging to Yarmouth, and carried the suit
into the Court of Chancery, where it continued till an agreement between
the contending parties was made by the King and his council, in the
second year of his reign. And in the following year another order was
issued by the kings’ council, whereby an accord or composition, and final
decision was settled and agreed upon between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, that
the latter might buy herrings in Kirkley road under certain conditions
therein specified. And these decisions, the Yarmouth men were once more
restored to their usual privileges, and for some time were permitted
peaceably to collect their lawful customs in Kirkley road, and to
proclaim their free fair there as usual as well as at the other stated
places in the town and haven.
But, notwithstanding this seeming amicable adjustment, many fresh
disputes arose soon after between the towns, which occasioned many
interruptions, and at last frequent depredations on each other’s
property; for the Yarmouth men would frequently make seizures of boats,
etc., belonging to Lowestoft, under pretence of non-compliance with the
last-granted charter; and not only continued to do so till the year 1595,
the 37th of Elizabeth, but endeavoured also further at that time to
extend the boundary of their liberties beyond the limits by the
prescribed charter, which gave but too much reason for fresh complaints
being exhibited against them.
Before proceeding any further in investigating the causes which produced
the various disputes between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, concerning the
herring fishery, it may be observed that the burgh of Yarmouth held its
charter upon paying the fee-farm rent of £55 per annum, to King John and
his successors; which rent they were empowered to raise by levying a toll
or custom upon vessels bringing herrings and other merchandise into the
port of Yarmouth, to be bought and sold there; but as the entrance into
the haven leading to the port of Yarmouth having, in consequence of the
sand banks that were formed there, extended itself as far as Corton, and
was also so choaked up that vessels could not enter therein, but were
obliged to sell their goods in an adjoining place called Kirkley road, by
which means the burgesses of Yarmouth lost their customs, and were
rendered incapable of paying their fee-farm rent; they therefore
petitioned to have the said road united to their haven, which accordingly
was granted, upon condition that the above annual rent of £55 was
advanced to £60. Thus for the proceedings on the part of Yarmouth were
just and reasonable; and the riotous and illegal behaviour of the
Lowestoft men, by refusing or evading the payment of the customs
belonging to the port of Yarmouth, was very unjustifiable and
reprehensible. The point, therefore, which rendered the burgesses of
Yarmouth so very blameable in this affair, was their attempting under the
pretence of claiming their just rights and liberties granted them by
their charter, to extend them much further than they were authorised to
do; for they pretended that Kirkley road was situate to the _south_ of
Lowestoft; that the seven leuks or miles, the boundary of their
liberties, was to be measured from the mouth of the haven and not from
the key or port of Yarmouth: and also, that the said leuks were leagues
and not miles; and, consequently, had they succeeded in their designs,
the town of Lowestoft must either have been wholly excluded from the
fishery, or become tributary to the port of Yarmouth, from being liable
to the above customs. These proceedings on the part of Yarmouth were
illegal, and therefore justly opposed by the town of Lowestoft. The
methods made use of in those early times by the merchants at Lowestoft to
supply themselves with herrings, were very different from what it is at
present; for now they are furnished with herrings by their own boats; but
then, in general, they were obliged to repair to the port of Yarmouth
whilst it was open, and afterwards to Kirkley road (as the place of
general rendezvous for buying and selling herrings), in order to supply
themselves with fish, they having but few, if any boats of their own at
that time. Whilst the Lowestoft men repaired to the port of Yarmouth to
buy herrings, they had a just right to pay the customs that were due
there, and also the same in Kirkley road, when it was united to the
haven, and therefore were blameable in either refusing or evading them;
what, therefore, rendered the burgesses of Yarmouth so very culpable was,
their unjust and illegal attempts above mentioned (about the 37th of
Elizabeth, and again in 1659) wholly to exclude the town of Lowestoft
from the herring fishery, and to monopolise it to themselves. The
proceedings relative to these designs will appear in the subsequent part
of this section.
The first complaint against the Yarmouth men was that made to the lords
of the privy council, in the year 1595, by the bailiffs and other
inhabitants belonging to the several towns of Ipswich, Colchester,
Dunwich, Orford, Aldborough, Southwold, and Manningtree, in behalf of the
ketchmen, who resorted to Kirkley road and parts adjacent to buy
herrings; signifying the many hardships and inconveniences which they
laboured under from being deprived by the burgesses of Yarmouth of the
ancient privilege they enjoyed, and the great injury they were liable to,
in consequence thereof.
The ketchmen were those vessels which frequented these coasts in the
fishing season for the purpose of buying and selling herrings, which they
transacted in the open sea; but now Yarmouth men were for compelling them
to resort to Kirkley road, in order that they might receive the customs,
grounding their claim upon a grant of Queen Elizabeth.
THE COMPLAINT OF THE KETCHMEN AGAINST YARMOUTH.
Whereas there is a certain grant passed from her majesty to the
township of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, as we are
credibly informed, and as the township of Yarmouth aforesaid have
given out speech and reported, That no fishermen, after the feast of
St. Michael, by the space of forty days, should utter or sell any
herrings within the compass or limit of seven miles of the said town,
to any person or persons; but that the said fishermen should be
constrained and urged to utter and sell all such herrings as should
be by them taken within the time before limited at the town of
Yarmouth aforesaid, and there to take and abide their market and
utterance of the same herrings, and not elsewhere. We, therefore,
which hereunder have subscribed, having had due consideration of the
premises, and seeing and proving not only the great damage and
inconvenience that the same will bring to the whole commonwealth of
this realm, but also the utter ruin and destruction that will fall
upon a number of poor ketchmen which be in trade with the said
fishermen, whereby the said ketchmen, their wives and families, as
also a great number of others who are thereby supported, sustained,
and upholden, do think the said grant to be very unprofitable and
inconvenient. The reasons that do move us thereto are these; that is
to say, If the fishermen, after the taking of the said herrings,
shall be constrained to repair, abide, and make their market and
sales at Yarmouth aforesaid, they shall within that time lose the
benefit of the taken twice so many herrings or more, as they shall
utter and sell, and not the half part of the herrings taken that
might be taken if they might abide and make their market at sea. And
also, if the said ketchmen shall be dismayed from buying of herrings
of the said fishermen, the most parts of the realm during that time
shall be unserved and unprovided for, and the queen’s highnesses,
poor distressed people and others would be unrelieved, which were a
most pityful and lamentable thing. And finding also, as we are
credibly informed, and some of us of our own knowledge do know, that
the bailiffs of the said town of Yarmouth have taken seven men’s
goods, which they have brought thither to be sold, and have committed
the owners thereof to prison, and constrained them to buy their own
goods again. (All which inconveniences, discommodities, and hard
dealings being considered.) We doubt not but that their godly
wisdoms to whom these presents shall be committed, will have due
regard and consideration thereof, as well for the benefit and
maintenance of the common wealth of this realm, as also for the
maintenance and relief of the poor distressed therein. And thus
thinking it our duties to certify our knowledge therein, we most
humbly take our leaves, the seventh day of August, 1595.
Signed at IPSWICH—EDWARD GOODYNGE, WILLIAM MYTUAL, Bailiffs
and 46 inhabitants. SOUTHWOLD—27 ditto. MANNINGTREE—10 ditto.
DUNWICH—ROBERT SWOTCHETT, JOHN ALLEYN, bailiffs and 20
ditto. COLCHESTER—22 ditto. ALDBOROUGH—FRANCIS JOHNSON,
JOHN JEAMES, bailiffs and 25 ditto. ORFORD—5 ditto.
The only grant made to Yarmouth in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, was a
charter, in the first year of her reign, which empowered them to hold a
court of admiralty, to try all maritime causes whatsoever, piracy only
excepted; and wherein the boundaries of their liberties were restrained
within the limits of seven leuks of the town, haven, or Yarmouth roads,
and not from the haven’s mouth, or Kirkley road; without adding any
additional privilege tending to justify this encroachment on the
liberties of the ketchmen.
Another complaint made also at the same time against the burgesses of
Yarmouth was one from the town of Lowestoft; for the town of Yarmouth
pretended that the seven leuks or miles which bounded their liberties was
not to be measured from the key or port of Yarmouth but from the haven’s
mouth; whereas the Lowestoft men affirmed that the said admeasurement
ought to be made from the key or port of that town; otherwise the
fishermen of Lowestoft would be excluded the indisputable privilege of
buying herrings in the open road before their own town, which hitherto
they had always enjoyed.
In consequence of these complaints, their lordships after hearing what
each party had to alledge in its own defence; referred the further
consideration thereof to three judges of the realm, viz., the right
honourable Sir John Fortescue, knight, one of Her Majesty’s privy
council; Mr. Justice Clench, and Mr. Justice Gawdye, in order that they
might certify to their lordships in what manner the dispute between the
said towns might be fairly and equitably adjusted to the reasonable
satisfaction and advantages of both parties.
A LETTER of REFERENCE to SIR JOHN FORTESCUE, Knight, MR. JUSTICE
CLENCH, and MR. JUSTICE GAWDIE.
After our hearty commendations.—The inhabitants of the town of
Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, have exhibited a complaint unto
us against the towne of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk,
shewing, that by some unlawful courses held by the townsmen of
Yarmouth, they are deprived of their antient trade of buying of
herrings of fishermen in an open road before the town of Lowestoft;
whereupon we have called before us of each town some two or three,
with intention to make order in the controversie between them. And
because the affair do consist of many points and proofs by charters,
and by special statutes we have thought good to be assisted therein
with the opinions of some learned in the laws, and therefore have
thought good to join with you Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, you
Mr. Justice Gawdie {74}—and you Mr. Justice Clench. And do hereby
heartily pray and request you, at some convenient time this term, to
call the parties before you, and effectually to appease the griefs of
the plaintiff, and the answers to the other, and to hear and consider
their allegations and proofs, to be delivered either by the parties
themselves, or by their learned council thereupon; we pray you to
certify unto us what you shall find, and with your opinions prove
their differences may in equity be duly and orderly ended and
compromised to the reasonable benefit of either; which we earnestly
recommend unto you, and so bid you each heartily well to fare. From
the Star-Chamber the second of July, 1595.
Your very loving friends,
L. ARCHBISHOP, L. ADMIRAL,
L. KEEPER, L. COBHAM,
L. TREASURER, L. BUCKHUST,
Mr. VICE CHAMBERLAIN.
Con cordat cum origine,
THOS. WILKES.
Accordingly, soon after it was certified to their lordships by the
judges, that after due consideration of the premises, and hearing the
several allegations advanced by both the said towns, and their learned
council, they were of opinion, that by a statute of 31st of Edward III,
no persons were legally authorised to hang herrings within seven miles of
the haven of Yarmouth, viz., South Town; East Town; and West Town, unless
the said herrings were of their own catching.
A CERTIFICATE FROM SIR JOHN FORTESCUE, JUSTICE CLENCH, AND JUSTICE
GAWDIE, CONCERNING THE CONTROVERSY BETWIXT THE TOWN OF YARMOUTH AND
THE TOWN OF LOWESTOFT.
Whereas your lordships did direct unto us your letter dated the
second of July last past, to examine and understand the griefs and
controversies between the inhabitants of the town of Great Yarmouth,
in the county of Norfolk, touching the trade of buying herrings: and
to certify unto you our opinions how their differences might in
equity be duly and orderly ended and compounded; we have accordingly
called before us divers of the inhabitants of either of the said
towns, and heard their allegations alleged by themselves, and their
council learned on both sides. And it doth appear into us, that this
condition between the said towns hath depended of very long time; and
divers statutes hath been made in this case by parliament for the
town of Yarmouth, and repealed again for the town of Lowestoft. And
divers ordinances and inquisitions have been made by the king’s
commission, directed to men of great authority, and afterwards
revoked, and altered again by the same authority. But there was one
statute made in the 31st year of Edward III, whereby, amongst other
things, it is provided, that none shall hang herrings about the haven
of Yarmouth by seven miles, but in the three towns of Yarmouth,
except the said herrings be of their own fishing. And another Act,
made in the 10th of Richard II. for revising of divers former
repealed charters made to Yarmouth, in which, amongst other things, a
certain place in the main sea, then by the mouth of the haven of the
said town of Yarmouth, called Kirkley road, was united to the said
town of Yarmouth, and by which it is provided, that none shall buy or
sell herrings by way of merchandize in time of their fair, within
seven miles of the said town, but only in the said haven and road.
Which said two statutes we do think by the law stand still in force
at this day, not repealed, nor avoided touching these points. But
for unity to be made between the said towns, and for the good and
common wealth of her majesty’s subjects in the counties of Norfolk,
Suffolk, Essex, and the city of London, We do think in our opinions,
it were good and convenient (if it may so seem good to your
lordships), that orders might be given to have the said seven miles
measured, to begin at some such place in Yarmouth town as your
lordships shall think meet; which we think, for our parts, to be the
key, where the fair of herrings is kept, and so to go towards
Lowestoft; and where the said seven miles do end, to set up some
apparent thing to make it known. And this being done we think it
would make some quietness, because there is great contention now in
this point. Also we do think it fit, that all pikers and ketches,
being English, might buy upon the main sea, or coasts thereof, and
also in Kirkley road, of the fishermen, fresh herrings at their
pleasure, to be by them carried to what place of the realm they think
good, without any let or disturbance of Yarmouth men, according to
the true meaning of the statute of the 31st of Edward III, which we
think would be very profitable for the fishermen, and very beneficial
for her majesty’s subjects. Also we think it would make great
quietness in this contention, if, by some commission or other, (as it
shall seem to your honourable lordships), it might be certainly set
down where Kirkley road is, and how far it doth extend. November
28th, 1595.
Concordat cum Registro Exor.
JOHN WOLLEY,
Keeper of the Records of the Councell Chamber.
* * * * *
THE OPINION OF THE LOWESTOFT COUNSEL TOUCHING THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
YARMOUTH AND THE SAID TOWN.
A brief being made upon the allegations of the Yarmouth men, and
delivered to the judges in writing (which such allegations, in truth,
were not under the hands of their councel, though they proceeded from
their councel), shewing that the judges should have delivered a
certificate of their opinions to the Council-Table before the
Yarmouth men were gone out of London, although the judges had not
sufficient time for that purpose, the Yarmouth men not presenting
their allegations till the last day of term, and then deferred it
till the judges were going to supper; therefore the Lowestoft men
have retained Mr. Sergeant Drewe and Mr. Bargrave, her majesty’s
attorney, together with Mr. Councellor Bacon, to consider the whole
state of the matter, and that their opinion might be shewed as
occasion should require, they have subscribed to the same, as
followeth: “That by the statutes and charters aforesaid, any man may
sell and buy herrings in the road called Kirkley road, or elsewhere,
without the lawful let or hindrance of the town of Yarmouth; and if
any proclamation be made by the said men of Yarmouth, or any other of
the subjects of this realm, to the contrary, the same, in our
opinion, is unlawful, whether it be within or without the time of the
fair.”
CHAR DREW, JA. BARGRAVE, FR. BACON.
In order to form the better judgment of this intricate and much disputed
affair, it may be necessary to observe, that by the statute of the 9th of
Edward III it was enacted, “That every subject of the realm might buy and
sell herrings without disturbance in city, burgh, sea-port, or elsewhere
throughout the kingdom; and if any charters and patents were granted to
the contrary they should be holden null; which statute was confirmed in a
subsequent parliament.” Probably from some abuse of this privilege, it
might become necessary afterwards to lay it under some restrictions, in
view of preventing those infringements which interested persons, from
lucrative motives, had made on the rights and privilege of others; and
therefore to redress this grievance, the following statute of the 31st of
Edward III was granted, on which the Yarmouth men grounded part of their
claim, and is the statute referred to in the certificate of the judges.
STATUTE OF THE 31ST OF EDWARD III.
Edward, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of
Ireland—To our bailiffs of the cinque ports, and the burgesses of our
town of Yarmouth, keepers of the said town, greeting, etc.
A certain concord by us and our council, made within the time of the
present fair of the said town, we will have kept, etc.
That none shall go by boat nor bridge into the sea, nor unto the road
of Kirkley, for to meet the fishers, to compel them, or to capture
them to sell them herrings in the road of Kirkley, to the disturbance
of the said fair, upon the same pain, etc.
But if the said fishers be disposed and willing to sell their
herrings in the said road after that they be anchored there, it shall
be lawful to the merchants of Lowestoft and Winterton, to buy any
herrings in Kirkley road and Winterton, of ships so anchored there,
as freely as the pycards do load their carts and horses there, which
come thither from divers counties, and to hang there, provided that
they sell no herrings therefore towards the sea, upon pain aforesaid,
etc.
And in case that any fishers ships charged with one last and a half
of herrings, or less, come into the road of St. Nicholas, and will
not come into the haven for the charge thereof, and will sell the
same herrings in the road that it shall be lawful for him to set up
his sign, and sell the said herrings there to the merchants that will
buy them.
When the judges delivered their opinions, that by this statute none
should hang herrings about the haven of Yarmouth, by seven miles, etc.,
they meant that port of the haven near the key where the fair was kept,
and not the mouth of the haven. The Yarmouth men on the contrary,
insisted that the words in this statute, “and to hang there,” implied,
not to hang anywhere else but near the said haven, thereby endeavouring
to exclude the town of Lowestoft from the privilege of curing herrings.
But the opinion delivered by the judges being found just and reasonable
it was confirmed by an order of council as will be afterwards more
clearly shewn. Nevertheless, it may be observed that the disputes which
these statutes principally refer to, and are alluded to by the judges are
those which relate to the extent of the liberties of Yarmouth. For the
charter which united Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven was not granted until
the 46th of Edward III. which was fifteen years after the passing of the
preceding statutes.
And by an Act passed in the tenth year of the reign of Richard II (which
confirmed the Act of the 46th of Edward III) it was enacted, that a
certain place in the main sea, called Kirkley Road, should be united with
the said town of Yarmouth; and by which Act it was provided, that none
should buy or sell herrings, by way of merchandise, in time of their
fair, within seven miles of the said town, but only in the said haven or
road. Which two statutes they thought were still in force, and
unrepealed; but yet for the sake of restoring peace and harmony between
the said town, and promoting the common benefit of the kingdom in
general, they recommended it to their lordships, that the said seven
miles which circumscribed the liberties of Yarmouth, should be measured
from the key of the said town where the herring fair is always held,
towards Lowestoft; and at the termination thereof some apparent mark
should be placed, in order to ascertain the exact boundaries of their
liberties, and to prevent any farther disputes. And also, that they were
of opinion, that by virtue of the statutes of the 31st of Edward III all
English vessels were entitled to the privilege of buying fresh herrings
in the middle of the sea, or coasts thereof, and also in Kirkley road,
without any let or hinderance from the men of Yarmouth. And lastly, that
they thought it very advisable, that a commission might be appointed to
consider the premises, and to ascertain with precision the true situation
of Kirkley road, in order to adjust the present differences, and to
prevent any future contentions between the said towns.
This opinion of the judges was no sooner delivered, than it was opposed
by the burgesses of Yarmouth with the utmost vehemence, and every method
was made use of to conceal its reasonableness, and to divert its
consequences, the Yarmouth men still persisting that the seven miles
which terminated the boundaries of their privileges, were to be measured
upon the sea, and not to be contracted by the numerous windings that
would necessarily attend an admeasurement taken upon land.
Upon the starting of these objections by the burgesses of Yarmouth, their
lordships were pleased to issue orders for a re-hearing of the case,
which was appointed to be held before Sir John Forteseue and the other
judges; who after hearing and examining what the learned counsel employed
by each party had to advance in support of the demands of their
respective clients, and duly considering how far their several
pretensions were just and reasonable, they certified to their lordships,
that they were unable to discover any legal or equitable reason why they
should depart from their former opinion.
A SECOND CERTIFICATE FROM SIR JOHN FORTESCUE, JUSTICE CLENCH, AND
JUSTICE GAWDY, CONCERNING THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
YARMOUTH AND THE TOWN OF LOWESTOFT.
Whereas, upon the return of our first certificate, the men of
Yarmouth opposed it, as discontented with some things therein
specified: whereupon it pleased your lordships to re-commit to us the
hearing of both parties; and having accordingly heard both they
themselves and their learned council, at Serjeants Inn, in Chancery
Lane, we do further certify, that we find no cause to alter the said
certificate.
CONCORDAT CUM RESISTRO
EXOR
JOHN WHOLLEY,
Keeper of the Records of the Council Chamber, April 30th, 1596.
In consequence of this second certificate of the judges, their lordships,
on the 16th day of May, 1596, issued an order that an actual
admeasurement of the said seven miles should be immediately carried into
execution, and at the termination thereof towards Lowestoft, some
apparent mark should be affixed, to point out the boundaries of the
liberties of Yarmouth; and that the same admeasurement should commence at
Yarmouth key, the place where the herring fair is usually held; and also
further to ascertain the true situation of the place called Kirkley road;
and accordingly a commission was granted to Sir Arthur Heneningham, Sir
Henry Woodhouse, Knight, and Henry Gawdy, Esq., {78} on the part of
Yarmouth; and to Sir Robert Jermyn, Sir John Higham, Knight, and Anthony
Wingfield, Esq., on the part of Lowestoft, or any five or four of them,
to superintend the said admeasurement, to affix the said mark, and to
point out the precise situation of Kirkley road, where it beginneth, and
how far it extendeth.
AT THE COURT AT GREENWICH, the 16th of May, 1596.
Present,
LORD ARCHBISHOP, LORD CHAMBERLAIN, LORD BUCKHURST,
LORD KEEPER, LORD COBHAM, SIR JOHN FORTESCUE.
This day John Felton and Thomas Dannett, burgesses of the town of
Yarmouth, and William Wild and Thomas Ward, inhabitants of the town
of Lowestoft, having been before the lords of the council, and
presented to them the certificate sent down by Sir John Fortescue,
Justice Clench, and Justice Gawdy, signed with their own hands,
concerning the controversy before referred to them by their
lordships, between the towns of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, concerning
the trade of buying herrings. Their lordships having perused the
said certificate, and deliberately considered of it, have approved of
it in these two points: first, for the privilege of seven miles; and
secondly, for a commission to be granted for finding of the right
place of Kirkley road (leaving the other matter of the pikers and
catchers, mentioned in the said certificate, by consent of both
parties themselves). And because the question between them is
concerning the measuring of seven miles where the same ought to begin
(the one part saying that it should begin at the haven’s mouth, the
other at the key, where and about which place, the fair is usually
kept), their lordships do approve of the judgment and certificate of
the said judges, that it ought to be taken from the said key, or
place of their fair, in Yarmouth town; and have therefore ordered,
that letters should be written and directed from their lordships unto
Sir Arthur Heneningham, Knt., Sir Henry Woodhouse, Knt., and Henry
Gawdy, Esq., for the town of Yarmouth; and for the town of Lowestoft
Sir Robert Jermyn, Knt., Sir John Higham, Knt., and Anthony
Wingfield, Esq., or any five or four of them, to undertake the
measuring of the seven miles from the town of Yarmouth, according to
the intention of the privilege claimed by the town of Yarmouth by
their charter; and at the end of the said seven miles so measured, to
affix and set down an apparent mark; and upon good examination and
enquiry, to set down and define the place where Kirkley road is,
which the charters of Yarmouth mentioneth; where it beginneth, and
how far it extendeth.
Ex. Sipe. THO. SMITH.
* * * * *
FROM THE COURT AT GREENWICH, the 16th day of May. 1596.
Present,
JOHN CANTERBURY, WM. CEICELL, THO. BUCKHURST.
THO. EGERTON, WM. COBHAM, J. FORTESCUE.
To our very loving friends, Sir Arthur Heneningham, Sir Henry
Woodhouse, Sir Robert Jermyn, Sir John Higham, Knts., Henry Gawdy and
Anthony Wingfield, Esqs., or to any five or four of them.