Part 11

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.