Part 15

Whereas the Yarmouth men under pretence of a privilege granted them in their charter, that no fishers should deliver any herrings within seven miles of their town during the time of their free fair, which beginneth at Michaelmas, and continues till Martinmas, have, on one day of the year, come rowing in small boats into the roads before Lowestoft, and there have exacted anchorage, although eight or nine miles distant from Yarmouth; and if they refuse to pay it they violently take their goods, cruelly beat the fishermen and their assistants, confiscate their vessels and set grievous fines on them, on purpose to prevent their delivering any herrings at Lowestoft to the great damage of the poor fishers and injury of the said town; who, if compelled to deliver all their herrings at Yarmouth, must lose at least one third part of their time; and when they do proceed to Yarmouth, by an ordinance of that town, the first freeman that comes on board must be his host, and will set the price of the fisher’s herrings without their knowledge or consent, which commonly is 20s. to 50s. a last cheaper than they give to their own townsmen, which the fishers are ready to make appear by certificates, or other ways; whilst at this town they are free to sell to whom they please, and are furnished with such necessaries as they want; and if they like not this market, they are free to sell their fish to any other, and return to sea again at their own pleasures.

* * * * *

OBSERVATIONS ON THE ADMEASUREMENT OF THE SEVEN MILES AND THE PLACE CALLED KIRKLEY ROAD.

The Yarmouth men alleged that Lowestoft south road was within the compass of seven miles from the town and herring fair of Yarmouth, although upon an admeasurement it was found, that only Corton road and part of Lowestoft north road were within the limits of the said seven miles and that the greatest part of even Lowestoft north road is beyond the said seven miles, the boundary of the liberties of Yarmouth, yearly proclaimed. Yet, notwithstanding, the Yarmouth men have made a practice of coming one day in the year, in the time of their fair, only into Corton and Lowestoft north road, but also into Lowestoft south road and have there unjustly extorted anchorage under the colour of a grant of Kirkley road being united unto their town and haven, and was situated off the town of Kirkley, which place so granted was found (before the granting), by two inquisitions of record, to be at the mouth of the haven of Yarmouth, and nothing distant; which inquisitions agreed with no other place but that now called Yarmouth road; and there they have enjoyed all those things mentioned in the said inquisitions, and grant of the 10th of Richard II. until the first of Queen Elizabeth, and then they obtained a new grant of Yarmouth road which until that time they held by the name of Kirkley road, and by no other name or grant; and though they have come wrongfully into the roads of Lowestoft one day in the year, exacting anchorage, they leave all other profits, jurisdictions, and government, all other parts of the year, unto the Vice-Admiral of Suffolk; for admiralty causes, and concerning wreck of the sea, things found in the roads, flotsom and jotsom, and all other casualties in the said roads and shores of the same, all that they leave to the lord of the manor of Lothingland, Lowestoft, and Mutford all along the shores as far as Kessingland, which is three miles southward of Lowestoft; but they never had any part of the same in use or possession but as before mentioned. It appears by copies of letters patent in the 9th of Richard II. and by an edict of the extent of the manor of Lowestoft, taken the 10th of Richard II. and returned into the Exchequer in the term of St. Michael, that the lords of the manor of Lowestoft have had and enjoyed from time to time in the roads before Lowestoft, and all shores of the same; and also had, and still have, all petty customs of all goods there landed, (which was much in those days), and all casualties happening in the said roads, and upon the shores thereof; and the trade of merchandising herrings and other merchandise have continued ever since; as the great number of herring houses, warehouses, and other buildings do now remain, as monuments, to prove the use of the said trades at Lowestoft. And likewise there have been of antient time, and still continue, officers for the collecting such customs as should be due to the lord, etc., and a deputy searcher for the king’s customs; and although the aforesaid trade of merchandising, loading, and unloading of ships and boats continued there, and never any of the customs claimed by the town of Yarmouth were either taken or demanded for such loading or unloading; and although the statute of the 31st of Edward III. concerning the prohibition of discharging any more herrings in the road of Kirkley, but for the charge of the pickers, was never in use etc., yet, under the pretence of the grant (46th Edward III.) of a place in the sea, then called Kirkley road, which no ways agreeth to be Lowestoft roads, they have of late used to come into the said roads before Lowestoft, which is above seven miles from the town of Yarmouth, and fair of herrings kept in the said town; and have compelled the fishers to sail to Yarmouth and sell their herrings, etc.; and likewise have exacted anchorage, tending greatly to the breach of the peace, and without any material profit to Yarmouth, and which tends only to the disturbing and diminishing of the trade of merchandising herrings at Lowestoft.

But now the Yarmouth men, as if all their former injuries were not sufficient, have sent a vessel, a man-of-war ship as they term it, with a flag on the main-top-mast head, having 25 men aboard, armed with swords, half-pikes, muskets, and great store of stones, which sail into the roads of Corton, Lowestoft and Kirkley, to ride there at anchor, and to act as above by virtue of a commission under the hands of the bailiffs and three justices of the Peace, and the seal of the said town, so that the fishers may not deliver any herrings at all, which before they never practised.

* * * * *

THE AFFIDAVIT or JAMES MUNDS, OF LOWESTOFT.

James Munds, of Lowestoft, Suffolk, fisherman, aged sixty years and upwards, maketh oath, that he has used the trade of fishing forty-five years and upwards, last past, upon the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk; and that the western fishermen and strangers have constantly, during the time of the free fair kept at Yarmouth, delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft aforesaid, to several merchants inhabiting in the said town, without any disturbance or molestation, till this last year the men of Yarmouth sent out a vessel, which they called a man-of-war, furnished with five and twenty men, and several weapons of war, which anchored in the roads of Lowestoft the chiefest part of the season, daily chasing the fishermen, so that none durst deliver any herrings, to their great damage, and, if not timely prevented, to their utter ruin and undoing.

JAMES MUNDS.

Prob. 30th die Januarii, A.D. 1660, Corum me in Cancell. Magistro,

THOMAS ESCOWTR.

* * * * *

THE AFFIDAVIT OF ROGER HOOPER, OF RAMSGATE.

Roger Hooper, of Ramsgate, Kent, aged forty-six, or thereabouts, maketh oath that he hath used the trade of herring fishing four and thirty years, last past, upon the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk; and that the western fishermen, his neighbours, and others, and also strangers, have constantly, during the time of the free fair kept at Yarmouth, delivered herrings in the road of Lowestoft aforesaid, to several merchants, inhabitants there, without any molestation, until this last year, when the Yarmouth men sent out a vessel, which they called a ‘man-of-war,’ to ride in the roads of Lowestoft the chiefest part of the season; which man-of-war threatened him, that if he delivered any herrings at Lowestoft, they would seize him. So that none dare deliver any herrings, to their great damage, and, if not timely prevented, to the utter undoing of their voyage.

ROGER HOOPER.

Prob. Febru. 1660. Corum me in Cancell. Magistro.

BYRED.

Having been grievous sufferers for our constant fidelity to his sacred Majesty; several times plundered, grievously burthened with taxes above the neighbouring towns, soldiers living at free quarters, great losses by sea, depopulated of our principal inhabitants by their being engaged in his majesty’s service, as Captains Allen, Utber, Canham and Whiting, besides a great number of our common seamen, and many who have lost their lives in contending with these oppressors, and also a most lamentable fire in this town, which consumed 140 houses, together with tackling and goods to the amount of ten thousand pounds and upwards, for which we never had any favour. And now having made large provisions for the fishery of all sorts, as also for the receiving, salting, and drying such herrings as they should bring in being able to hang in this town about 700 lasts, which time out of mind, have been the sole subsistance of this town, are now bespoiled at once, and like to perish, if speedy remedy be not obtained, being no ways able to wage war with them, for reasons above.

We therefore humbly pray, etc.

* * * * *

THE SECOND ORDER OF THE TOWN OF GREAT YARMOUTH TO THOMAS ALLEN TO ENTER CORTON ROAD, LOWESTOFT ROAD, AND KIRKLEY ROAD, TO PROTECT THE LIBERTIES OF THE SAID TOWN OF GREAT YARMOUTH.

Whereas Thomas Allen was late ordered by us, the bailiffs and justices of the burgh and town of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, her under named, to go into Corton road, Lowestoft road, and Kirkley road, Suffolk, with a vessel and a convenient company, to take notice of such persons, strangers and others, as shall there deliver any herrings or other merchandise, during the time of the free fair here at Great Yarmouth, contrary to our liberties and charters; and to seize such vessels and merchandise, as forfeited to the king’s majesty, and to bring the same into the haven of this town. And we did also order the said Thomas Allen, with his company, to demand and take in the said several roads such duties as were or should be due to this town of Great Yarmouth for anchorage of ships and vessels in these roads, or for any other cause, which said orders by us so given unto the said Thomas Allen, were done by virtue of an act or ordinance of common councel of the said town of Great Yarmouth. And whereas the said Thomas Allen, by virtue of our said order unto him given, did go into the said road of Lowestoft, with a convenient vessel and competent number of men, to execute the orders by us given unto him; and was there opposed by the chief men of the said town of Lowestoft, who came upon the said Thomas Allen and his company in the road of that town, violently and riotously in boats, and with force of arms, etc., drave him and them out of that road, threatening them otherwise to fire their vessel; whereby the said Thomas Allen, with his vessel and company, was enforced to come away without doing anything. Now, therefore, we the said bailiffs and justices, do again order, authorise, and appoint the said Thomas Allen to go with a competent vessel and company of men, and with convenient weapons for their defence into the said roads of Corton, Lowestoft, and Kirkley, from time to time, during the time of the free fair here at Great Yarmouth, and there to do and execute all things, specified in our former order given unto him. In witness whereof we the said bailiffs and justices have hereunto set our hands and seals this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, six hundred and sixty.

NICHO. CUTTINGE, JAMES SYMONDS, (_Bailiffs_.)

JOHN CARTER, GEORGE ENGLAND. JO. WODROFFE.

The adjoining towns of Pakefield and Kirkley also lodged complaints before the Privy Council, against the Yarmouth men, similar to those from Lowestoft, so did likewise Hastings, Dover, Rye, and other towns of the western coast; and afterwards some private adventurers in those parts of England did not scruple, on this important occasion, to petition the throne to protect them from the despotic designs of the Yarmouth men.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS OF HIS MAJESTY’S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL.

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE SEA COAST TOWNS OF PAKEFIELD AND KIRKLEY, IN THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK.

Humbly certifying,

That the said towns are joining upon the sea, and divided by one street, subsisting chiefly by the fishing trade. And that we never knew, or heard our forefathers speak of any roads lying against or near the said town, called by the name of Kirkley road, but Pakefield bay or hithe, and Lowestoft roads; nor was there ever any road near our said town so called, but by the men of Yarmouth, on purpose to engross the whole of the fishery; and monopolise the whole trade to themselves; whilst, in truth, our town of Kirkley is near three miles southwards of the pole set up to the northward of Lowestoft, always accounted the boundary of the seven miles granted to the town of Yarmouth, measured from their crane key, and to be the uttermost extent of their privileges. Nevertheless, in the year 1657, two or three days after Michaelmas, as Thomas Fowler the elder, and Thomas Fowler the younger, of our said towns, were, for delivering of herrings betwixt our town of Kirkley and Lowestoft, at their next going to Yarmouth, had before the bailiff, who set a fine upon each of them, of £40 a-piece, which they were commanded to pay, or else their boats and tackling would be confiscated. But after alleging their poor condition, they mitigated it to £30, and at last to £20 a man, which they were compelled to lay down upon the table; and large writings were produced for them to sign and seal, to indemnify the said bailiff, which if they would do, they would take but £5 a man; but one of the Fowlers desiring to understand the contents of the writings, and beginning to read, Mr. Bailiff England interrupted him, and said that if he would not seal it, he should pay the whole £20; so that they were obliged to seal they knew not what, and were dismissed by each of them paying £5. Such is the great bondage of the poor fishermen. In testimony of the truth, we the inhabitants of the said towns have hereunto subscribed our names this 14th day of January, 1660; and are ready to aver the same upon oath when we shall be thereunto required.

ROBERT BRONSBY, WILLIAM RICHMAN, WILLIAM GOGOE, THOMAS COLBY, WILLIAM THURKITTLE, THOMAS FOWLER, MICHAEL FOWLER, WILLIAM WOODS, THOMAS ERTIS, JOHN COLBY, JOHN SWATT, JOHN SETTAVAYE, FRANCIS DURRAND, WILLIAM ERTIS, WILLIAM ROUSE, ABELL HOULSWORTE, THOMAS MASON, JOHN MASON HENRY CROSS, WILLIAM BROWN.

* * * * *

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS OF HIS MAJESTY’S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL.

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE FISHERMEN OF THE TOWNS OF BRIGHTHELMSTONE, HASTINGS, RYE, DOVER, RAMSGATE, AND THE REST OF THE WESTERN FISHERY.

Upon perusal of a petition presented unto the king’s most excellent majesty by the town of Lowestoft, in Suffolk, representing the injurious proceedings of the town of Yarmouth to them, and also the whole Western Fishery; and his majesty’s gracious reference thereupon unto the right honourable the Lords and others of his Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council for satisfaction and relief therein,

We do humbly certify unto your Lordships,

That the Western Fishery, has time out of mind, sold and delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft, until this last year, when the Yarmouth men sent forth a man-of-war (as they term her) not only to affrighten them and others from delivering herrings in the said roads, but also to prevent any that should offer to deliver herrings there. And in case they should presume to deliver any, to seize upon them, and bring them into their haven, to be dealt with accordingly (as by the commission granted to the commander or captain of the said man-of-war may appear); which they have done, not only to the great loss of some particular men, imposing great fines upon them, which they were forced to pay, but also the great discouragement, (and if not in time prevented) the ruin of the whole Western fishery. For if we be forced to deliver our herrings only at Yarmouth, we shall lose at least one-third part of our time, the winds falling so as that sometimes we lye through three or four days before we can get to sea again. Besides, having that advantage, they will give only what they please, which will amount to the loss of near half our time and profit, and will be much to the disadvantage of his Majesty’s subjects in trading, both at home and abroad. Whereas at Lowestoft we have the privilege to make the best of our market, and can go to sea when we please, furnished with all necessaries as plentifully as we can at Yarmouth. The truth of all which we do attest under our hands, humbly praying relief therein.

Signed at Bradstow, Foulstone, Hastings, Ramsgate, Hyde, Dover, Rye, Brighthelmstone, by 469 Western fishers, and others.

* * * * *

Lowestoft answereth, That the said statute of 31 Edward III. is repealed by the statute of 2 Richard II., cap. i.: which grants a free trade for all persons to buy and sell at any place within the realm, notwithstanding any statute, grant or usage to the contrary; and by 46, Edward III., which united Kirkley road to Yarmouth Haven.

Yarmouth alleges, That the anchoring place opposite the town of Kirkley, and the road before the town of Lowestoft, is that Kirkley road mentioned in the grant of 46 Edward III., which united Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven.

Lowestoft answers, That the town of Lowestoft is situated eight or nine miles to the south of Yarmouth; and that a mile further to the south is a village called Kirkley, joining to the head town called Pakefield; before which towns the anchoring places have always been called Pakefield bay or hithe, as by a certificate under the hands of the principal inhabitants of both those said towns doth appear.

Yarmouth says, That the seven miles, which bound their liberties, begin at the haven’s mouth.

Lowestoft answereth, That by the charter of 46 Edward III. the seven miles were confined to the town of Yarmouth.

Yarmouth declareth, That Kirkley road lies at a considerable distance from the haven’s mouth.

Lowestoft answereth, That the situation of it was contiguous to the mouth of the haven at the time when the haven discharged itself into the sea to the south of Corton, 46, Edward III., when the charter was granted for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven.

Yarmouth affirms, That the power and authority derived to them by extending their liberties to the distance of seven miles, were not detrimental to the nation in general, nor to Lowestoft in particular.

Lowestoft answereth, That it is prejudicial to both of them; and grounded their reasons on the two inquisitions held during 5 Richard II.

Yarmouth denieth. That the statute 31 Edward III. was repealed by the general statute 2 Richard II., and also insists, that by the charter 46 Edward III, for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven, their liberties were to extend seven miles from the said haven.

Lowestoft answereth, That the said charter 46 Edward III was repealed by an act 50 Edward III (though the judges declared that the statute 31 Edward III was not repealed) and that the statute 2 Richard II was prejudicial to the kingdom in general: and therefore a complaint was made thereof, in the parliament holden 4 Richard II, and an inquisition was taken by three judges of the realm, who surveyed the premises, and declared, that to extend the liberties of Yarmouth seven miles from the haven’s mouth, was against common right, and that the said statute 2 Richard II was hurtful to the commonwealth; and, consequently, by the statute 5 Richard III, the statute 2 Richard II was repealed.

Yarmouth declareth, that by the statute 10 Richard II all their privileges were confirmed to them, and again by statute 1 queen Elizabeth.

Lowestoft alloweth, that the liberties granted to Yarmouth, 46 Edward III were confirmed by statute 10 Richard II; but concerning the statute 1 Queen Elizabeth that did not relate to the herring fishery, except confining their liberties to seven miles from the town, but to the establishing a court of admiralty at Yarmouth; and, therefore, though the town of Yarmouth, under a pretence of being authorised by that grant, made considerable encroachments on the privileges of Lowestoft, and insisted that their privilege of seven miles was to be measured from the haven’s mouth, and not from the key of Yarmouth, thereby attempting to exclude the town of Lowestoft from the fishery; yet, on complaint thereof being made to her majesty’s privy council, who referred it to the judges, Sir John Fortescue, Justice Clench, and Justice Gawdy, they certified, that it was their opinion, that the seven miles should be measured from the crane key in Yarmouth, towards Lowestoft, and at the termination thereof a post, or some other mark should be erected to denote the same. Whereupon the Lords of the Council, on the 16th May, 1596, after referring the case again to the judges, laid it before the Parliament, who issued an order, in 1597, to Sir Arthur Heneningham, Sir Henry Woodhouse, and Henry Gawdy, Esq., on the part of Yarmouth, and to Sir Robert Jermyn, Sir John Higham, and Anthony Wingfield, Esq., on the part of Lowestoft, to undertake the admeasurement of the said seven miles; accordingly the said admeasurement was actually made, and a great post, denoting the boundary of the liberties of Yarmouth, was erected, which remained unto that day.

Yarmouth insisteth, That a Charter of confirmation, granted to them in the reign of James I., Kirkley road is expressly described as opposite to the town of Kirkley; and that their jurisdiction shall extend from Winterton Ness in Norfolk, to Easton Ness in Suffolk, which is twenty-four miles, and includes the town of Lowestoft, which is only eight or nine miles from Yarmouth; and that by virtue of this jurisdiction, they justify their interruption of the herring fishery at Lowestoft, and all other trades within the extent of their said liberties.