PART II.—IN THE TIME OF CHARLES II.

THIRD AND LAST CONTEST WITH YARMOUTH ABOUT THEIR CHARTER.—CONCLUSION.

It was while our merchants were suffering from their losses caused by the great fire, that the Yarmouth people made a third effort to enforce the privileges of their ancient charters now confirmed and strengthened by the charter of James I. It appears that for some years before 1659, they had sent boats into the roads off Lowestoft to exact harbour dues from fishing boats, but in this year they took a much stronger measure. They had in their harbour a large ship, probably the Queen’s ship which we have before heard of as used for war-like purposes. They fitted out this ship as a “man of war” and sent her to ride in the roads off Lowestoft. The ship was formally “commissioned” by the Yarmouth bailiffs under the command of Thomas Allen, a namesake of the Lowestoft champion, to prevent the Western fishermen and other strangers selling their fish to the Lowestoft merchants in the roads; with power to seize their ships, etc. The “man of war” was sufficiently formidable to terrorise the strangers, but not the Lowestoft men, who having well armed themselves for the encounter, went out in their boats to attack it. According to the statement of the Yarmouth bailiffs—

“The chief men of the said town came upon the said Thomas Allen and his company in the road of the said town, violently and riotously in boats, and with force of arms, etc., drave him and them out of the road, threatening them otherwise to fire their vessel. Whereby the said Thomas Allen with his vessel and company was forced to come away without doing anything.” {93}

In consequence of this vigorous action on the part of the Lowestoft men the ship was sent again sufficiently armed to resist any second attack, and

“With a flag on the maintop-roast head, having 25 men on board, armed with swords, half-pikes, muskets, and a great store of stones, the ship sails into the roads of Corton, Lowestoft and Kirkley, during the chiefest part of the season, daily chasing the fishermen so that none durst deliver any herrings.” {94a}

According to a statement in a petition of the inhabitants of Lowestoft to the House of Lords, {94b} the effect of these very high-handed proceedings on the part of the Yarmouth bailiffs was that the Lowestoft merchants were deprived of “at least a thousand lasts of herrings,” which they would otherwise have purchased from their visitors during the season. This was probably an exaggeration, but it was evident that unless this assertion of their privileges by the Yarmouth bailiffs was at once resisted, the herring-trade of Lowestoft would be annihilated at a time when its merchants had been rebuilding and enlarging their fish-houses with a view to an increase of their fish-curing trade. It was stated that at this time they had capacity in their fish-houses for “hanging” 700 lasts of herrings. This number of lasts were “hung” in the Lowestoft curing houses in 1674, {94c} a larger number than could be hung at one time in our present curing houses. But the number of herrings cured in the town would only be part of the quantity passing through the merchant’s hands—then and now.

LOWESTOFT APPEALS TO THE KING AGAINST YARMOUTH.

Impoverished as the merchants were by their losses from the fire, and the expense of rebuilding their houses and fish-houses, they bravely determined to resist the pretensions of Yarmouth by another appeal to the governing powers of the country, and at once took steps to gain the support and co-operation of other towns interested in the herring trade.

Meanwhile events had been taking place of much more importance to the country than the quarrel between Lowestoft and Yarmouth. The Cromwellian rule had come to an end, and a King again sat on the throne of England. Yarmouth had lost the claim to the favour of the crown which her ancestors had enjoyed in the days of the Edwards. She must secure the favour of the new King by other means. Before his landing, the Burgesses had met and determined that it was “a convenient season” to send an address to their King with the offer of a little pecuniary assistance. In August, 1660, they submitted a most loyal address to their “dread sovereign” congratulating him upon his being restored to his rights and possessions, etc., and acknowledging in all humility their obligation to pay the old fee-farm rent (which they had already paid to Cromwell by composition), and tendering him £266 13. 4. in cash for arrears. In the following December they sent him a further present of £500. {95}

The Lowestoft people had no reason to doubt the good will of Charles, and they commenced their suit by a petition to the King himself complaining of the conduct of the Yarmouth bailiffs, and supporting it by numerous petitions to the House of Lords, the Judges, the Fishmonger’s Company, and many great men of the day. This Petition to the King was very favourably received, as appears from the following reply from His Majesty, dated 17th October, 1660, at the court of Whitehall,

“The situation of the town of Lowestoft being very well known unto His Majesty, who is much dissatisfied with the proceedings of the town of Yarmouth, mentioned in the petition of the said town of Lowestoft, he is graciously pleased to refer the consideration of the said petition to the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesty’s most Honourable the Privy Council, to give such orders for the relief and satisfaction of the said petitioners as they in their great wisdom shall think meet.”

_Signed_ ROBERT MASON.

The Lowestoft people were so pleased with the King’s expression of sympathy with their cause, that they submitted a second petition to him asking him to preside in person at the hearing of the case, and “to put an end to all differences according to the rights and justice of their cause.”

The King did attend the hearing of the case, but he did not gratify the expectations of our old townspeople by deciding it in their favour at once.

The case was heard by the Privy Council on several days before the King, the Duke of York, and many great officers of state and noblemen. As when the case was brought before the Star Chamber in Elizabeth’s time, the Privy Council attempted to get the matter settled by referring it to the law authorities. But these learned persons found themselves equally unable to settle the dispute on legal grounds, and it was accordingly referred to the House of Lords. After the suit had been for upwards of two years under discussion by these various authorities, the House of Lords gave their decision, which was simply a repetition of the decision of the judges in Elizabeth’s time, but it was supplemented by an order to the Sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, to measure the distance of seven miles from the “Crane Key” at Yarmouth, along the shore towards Lowestoft, and to place there a new post to mark the limits, “within which the Bailiffs and Corporation of Yarmouth are to enjoy their full privileges and immunities, as the said statute of the 31st, Edward III., and their charter do afford them, and no further.”

PROCEEDINGS AT YARMOUTH ABOUT THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SEVEN MILES.

The 27th of May 1662, was agreed upon by the Sheriffs for making the measurement in pursuance of the order of the House of Lords, and at 9 o’clock in the morning of the appointed day, a number of Suffolk gentlemen, including seven Justices of the Peace, living near Lowestoft, and accompanied by the Under Sheriff of Suffolk, appeared at Yarmouth. Neither the Sheriff of Norfolk, Sir Richard Bacon, nor the Under Sheriff, Mr. Roger Smith, of Norwich, had arrived; but at 11 o’clock Mr. Roger Smith put in an appearance, and excused the absence of the High Sheriff on the ground that he was at his house about 30 miles away, and not in health.

A long altercation then took place between the Suffolk gentlemen and the Under Sheriff of Norfolk. Mr. Roger Smith took the bold course of denying that the House of Lords had “the power to take away another man’s rights,” and professed to be quite unable to satisfy himself at what point the measurement should commence, etc. At length having firmly maintained his position till dinner, he left the Suffolk gentlemen and dined with the Bailiffs.

Having waited till Mr. Smith had finished his dinner, the Suffolk gentlemen again requested him to join in the measurement, but now he was not only obdurate but returned “unhandsome answers.” Accordingly at the request of the Lowestoft men, the Suffolk Justices and the Under Sheriff engaged two surveyors and undertook to make the measurement without him. They commenced at the “Crane Key” about 4 o’clock in the afternoon “pursued by multitudes with much insolence and disturbance.” They rode along the shore under the cliff watching the surveyors laying their chain and completed their task about half an hour before sunset. Having marked the place for the new post, a few yards nearer Yarmouth than that of the “ancient” post, (that put up in Elizabeth’s time) they went on to Lowestoft and stayed there for the night.

The following day was spent in great rejoicing at Lowestoft. The High Sheriff of Suffolk had now joined the party, and they were entertained by the town at the Swan Hotel.

A post was soon afterwards set up at the spot fixed upon, but the Yarmouth men acting on the advice of Mr. Roger Smith, refused to recognise it, and the Lowestoft men had again to appeal to the Lords to enforce their order. In the following April the House of Lords issued their warrant to their Sergeant-at-Arms to take into custody Roger Smith, the Under Sheriff of Norfolk and ordered that the measurement should be executed again by the two sheriffs. This was done, without further interruption, on the 10th June following, and another post fixed.

Mr. Roger Smith having been detained in custody for about a fortnight petitioned to be released on the ground that as long as he was in prison the King’s taxes could not be collected. He was brought to the Bar of the House of Lords and ordered to make instant submission upon his knees at the bar of that house, before their lordships, in the words following.—

“I do humbly beg your Lordships’ pardon, and express very hearty sorrow for not executing your Lordships’ order, and for any unadvised words uttered by me, which might have any reflection on your Lordships’ judgement and order concerning the matter in difference between the towns of Lowestoft and Yarmouth.”

It was further ordered that he should make the same humble submission before the people on the “Crane Key” at Yarmouth. On these conditions he was released. Doubtless both acts of penance were duly performed.

Although the ghost of the old charter was not finally laid by the result of the contest, it was the last time that the expensive process of an appeal to the Crown, or to Parliament, was resorted to for settling the disputes which it gave rise to between the two towns. The expenses of this protracted suit, defrayed by Lowestoft, amounted to £600, not a very large sum compared with modern experiences.

In order to prevent the question being again raised by Yarmouth as to the distance to which their privileges extended, when Charles II. gave the town a new charter in 1684, a special proviso was inserted in it—

“That the word leuca mentioned in divers former charters signifies an English mile and no more, as declared by the House of Lords in the 15th year of our reign.” {99}

Thus the town was compelled to accept a construction of the provisions of their old charter which excluded Lowestoft from the area of their application.

“CORTON POLE.”

The spot where the 7 miles, measured from the Crane Quay at Yarmouth, was found to terminate, was in Gunton Denes about 150 yards this side of the Corton boundary. The post set up in 1663 was washed down a few years afterwards. It had been placed too near the sea, which at that period was advancing on the land at this part of the coast; and in 1676 another post was fixed, a few yards further inland, in the presence of a number of leading men representing the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. This post has been also replaced more than once since, but it is still represented by the post known as the “Corton Pole.” The present post, and one or two of its predecessors, have been used by the Corton Coast Guard for practising their life saving apparatus, and its interesting connection with the history of our old town is not generally known. Old men however still remember this post being known as a boundary mark beyond which Lowestoft people might not land fish. As Gillingwater does not mention any further replacing of the post before he wrote his history, it may be inferred that the post set up in 1676 was standing in his time. From what I have learnt as to the replacing of the posts in later years by the Coast Guard, it would appear that the present post is nearly in the same position as the posts of 1676, and 1596.

EFFECT OF THE SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF THE SUIT.

The success of our old townspeople in their contest with Yarmouth appears to have had the effect of reviving their energies, and encouraged them to take active measures for improving their hold on the herring trade, and increasing the number of ships employed by themselves in the fishery.

But at this time the trade appears to have been again in a depressed state owing to the Dutch war. According to a statement in their petition to Parliament in 1670, one half of the fishing adventurers of the town had given up the business and their fishermen were lamentably impoverished.

Our old town was however now in good favour with the government. Several of its seamen were doing good service in the Kings’ navy against the Dutch, and they had a good friend in Parliament in the old royalist Sir John Pettus, who had been one of the “strangers” captured by Cromwell in Lowestoft some 30 years before. They employed him to present petitions to Parliament on behalf of their own and the fishermen of other Suffolk towns.

One of these proposals was that “fishing beer” should be exempted from the excise duty. In connection with this proposal a return was made of the number of fishing boats employed by Lowestoft and the neighbouring Suffolk fishing villages. From this return it appears that at this time Lowestoft sent out 25 boats, Pakefield and Kirkley 14, Southwold 11, Aldborough 5, Corton 2, and Dunwich 1.

The consumption of beer by the crews of these 58 boats was estimated at 9 tuns per boat, amounting altogether to 522 tuns. It is probable that in these days a liberal supply of beer, which was very cheap, compensated for a deficiency in good food. Since the invention of tea, coffee and cocoa, beer is happily no longer necessary on board a fishing boat and has long since ceased to form part of the provisions carried by Lowestoft boats.

In 1679 we find our old townspeople taking steps for advancing the general mercantile trade of town, by petitioning the Treasury to allow their merchants to export corn, and import coal. {101} This was not granted, nor can we see how, without a harbour, the ambitious project of engaging in such trades could be entertained. Leave was however given for the exportation of butter, cheese, and fish and for the importation of all materials requisite for building and furnishing ships.

It was stated in this Petition that the town had then increased its shipping to the number of 60 vessels—a rapid advance on the 25 ships possessed 9 years before. As we are told by Gillingwater that the number of boats employed at Lowestoft in the herring fishery during the years 1722–1781, averaged about 33, there could have been no further advance in the fishing business until quite recent years. It is evident that our old townspeople had been bestirring themselves, and were making good use of the opportunity which the absence of Dutch busses from this side of the North Sea now offered.

With such evidence of a revival of life and energy in our old Town, and the promise of further growth and commercial development in the future, (a promise since so happily realised), we may close our sketch of Lowestoft in olden times.

It has given us glimpses of our old townspeople during four centuries of a chequered career during which they established and maintained their position with very little help from natural advantages or local circumstances. Without a harbour they were unable to make any material advance in either wealth or population. But small as the old town was it was able to contribute largely to the manning of the fleets which fought for England against the Dutch and other powers during the latter part of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, and to claim as her own sons many of the brave seamen who added to the glory of the national flag during those wars. A short notice of these Lowestoft heroes will be a fitting conclusion to our sketch. A full account of their exploits is to be found in Gillingwater.

You are already acquainted with Mr. Thomas Allen, one of Cromwell’s prisoners in 1643. He belonged to an old Lowestoft family. In the navy of Charles II. he held many high commands, and as an Admiral, took a prominent part in some of the fierce conflicts of the First Dutch War. In 1669 he retired from active service and was created a Baronet. Having acquired a handsome fortune, by opportunities not given to our sea warriors of the present day, he bought the Somerleyton Estate and resided in the old Hall for several years.

Admiral Utber and his son, Captain Utber, were also Lowestoft men who served with Admiral Allen in the Dutch Wars, and performed many distinguished services.

Sir John Ashby was another gallant seaman belonging to an old Lowestoft family. He was much distinguished for his services both as Captain and Admiral in the wars against France, in the time of William III. He was in command as Admiral of the Blue at the celebrated battle of La Hogue.

Another Lowestoft man, Sir Andrew Leake, was distinguished for his services in the war against France and Spain, in the early part of the reign of Queen Ann. He took part in the Capture of Gibraltar in 1704, and afterwards in the great battle off Malaga in the same year, in which he lost his life. (He must not be confused with his namesake, Sir John Leake, the hero of the siege.)

Another distinguished seaman was Admiral Mighells. He belonged to a well-known Lowestoft family, which had held a leading position in the town for more than a hundred years. The name has been mentioned more than once in these lectures. He was distinguished for his services in the war against Spain in 1719.

The last of our naval heroes, whose early career associated him with those already mentioned, was Captain Thomas Arnold. He earned great distinction in an action against the Spanish Fleet when serving under Admiral George Byng in 1718. He belonged to a family which had held a high position in the town for more than century, and which still holds the same position amongst us. The prestige of this family has been since enhanced by the celebrity of others of its members—the great educational Reformer, Dr. Arnold, Head Master of Rugby School, and his son, Matthew Arnold, one of the most distinguished of the poets and essayists of the Victorian Era.

FOOTNOTES.

{3} “Ramsay’s Physical Geology and Geography of Great Britain,” and “Woodward’s Geology of England and Wales.”

{10} Camden’s Britannia, p. 381. “For it is possible that the steepness of the hill, and a morass below next the river might be thought a sufficent security on that side.” Sir H. Spelman in his Icenia, speaks of Burgh “as a place surrounded with morass and narrow passes.”

{13} Exhibited at this Lecture.

{14} This is a corrected _Erratum_.—Was “at Lothu Wistoft (Lowestoft) and a beruita (or subordinate manor) in Gernemutha (Yarmouth)” and corrected to: read “at Gernemutha (Yarmouth) and a beruita (or subordinate manor) in Lothu Wistoft (Lowestoft).”

{17} Two lasts and two barrels. The value of salt herrings at this time was probably about 30s. a last, or £4 10s. of our present money. In 1295 fresh herrings sold at Yarmouth for 37s. a last. Swinden p. 922. Several salt works, (salinæ) are mentioned in Domesday at Caister and other places. The art of curing herrings by hanging and smoking them was apparently not practised until some two centuries after the conquest.

{21} Turner’s History of the Anglo Saxons.

{31} See Swinden p. 924.

{32} Swinden p. 94.

{33} Swinden, p. 300. Palmer, p. 43.

{39} Swinden p. 221.

{57} Built before 1553 by one “Katharine Mayde” Suckling’s Suffolk, Vol. II. pt. 5. p. 37.

{66} Froude, Vol. 8, p. 434.

{67a} Then.

{67b} The right thing.

{67c} Michaelmas.

{67d} Pigs ears, &c.

{67e} Ember-days.

{70} See below, p. 74.

{72} Not including the plague year, 1603, when the enormous number of deaths would give very misleading evidence of population.

{77} Palmer’s Perlustration of Great Yarmouth vol. III. 252.

{80} Swinden, p. 708.

{85} Carlyle’s Letters of Oliver Cromwell 109.

{90a} Gillingwater p. 31.

{90b} p. 78.

{92} Gill. p. 27

{93} Gill. 87.

{94a} Gill p. 86.

{94b} Gill. p. 100.

{94c} Gill. 1st Edition, p. 243

{95} Swinden, p. 475.

{99} Swinden, p. 334.

{101} Gill., p. 50.