Part 12

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afterwards laid before the parliament held in November following; and an act was made, that the new grants should be repealed for ever, and shall never be re-granted; that the charter should be called in and cancelled, and should also remain in the tower under special causes thereupon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.