SECTION IV. 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 men of Lowestoft paid 23 0 0

1394. In the 18th of Richard II. the farmer not recorded paid 26 0 0

1396. In the 20th of Richard II. William Spencer paid 26 0 0

1408. In the 20th of Richard II. a fisher of Flanders paid for a forfeiture in Kirkley road 1 0 0

1410. In the 10th of Henry IV. the farm of Kirkley road was paid weekly by Simon Thirkeld, bailiff of Kirkley road 8 0 0

1414. In the 2nd of Henry V. John Waller paid 8 0 0

1417. In the 5th of Henry V. the men of Lowestoft paid 8 0 0

1420. In the 8th of Henry V. Thomas Couehithe’s hosts, for a trespass and rescue committed in Kirkley road paid 4 0 0

1433. In the 12th of Henry VI. the farmer’s name not recorded paid 4 0 0

1434. In the 13th of Henry VI. the farmer’s name not recorded paid 3 16 8

1438. In the 17th of Henry VI. John Davy, merchant, paid 3 0 0

1442. In the 21st of Henry VI. John Folvile, of Lowestoft, paid 7 6 8

1445. In the 24th of Henry VI. farmer’s name not recorded paid 4 13 4

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.

After our hearty commendations.—Whereas, upon some controversy between the towns of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, concerning the trade of buying herrings, we have referred the consideration thereof to our very loving friends Sir John Fortescue, Knt., Justice Clench, and Justice Gawdy, who have accordingly returned certificates of their opinions of the matter, which herewith we send unto you; we have now, by the consent of both parties, made choice of you, as fit persons to execute the determination of the said certificates and do therefore pray and request you, or any five or four of you, with all convenient expedition to undertake the pains of measuring the seven miles from the town of Yarmouth sideway [79] according to the intention of the privilege claimed by the town of Yarmouth, by their charters; and at the end of the said seven miles so measured, to fix and set down apparent marks; and also upon good examination and inquiry to set down and define certainly where Kirkley road is which the charter of Yarmouth mentioneth; where it beginneth, and how far it doth extend. And of these two material points, and to certify your opinion and proceedings there upon such further orders shall be given therein as we shall think requisite. And so we bid you heartily farewell.

From your loving friends, etc.

But the burgesses of Yarmouth being conscious that they were prosecuting a claim for which they had neither a legal nor equitable pretension; and being also apprehensive, that if the affair was carried before the said commissioners, and submitted to a strict and impartial investigation, it would terminate greatly to their disadvantage; therefore they resolved as there was but little prospect of being successful in the enquiry, they would exert every effort in their power to retard and embarrass it; and that the most effectual mode for accomplishing their designs would be to counteract the commission; and accordingly, in a subsequent application to the Privy Council for redress of grievances, they transmitted such a partial representation of the case, as to obtain from their Lordships an order for a new commission. In this second commission we find, that an alteration was made in the appointment of commissioners; for in the place of Anthony Wingfield, Esq., one of the commissioners nominated in the first commission on the part of Lowestoft, William Rowse, Esq., was appointed in this second commission, a person partially attached to the interest of Yarmouth. And whereas, by the first commission, any four or five of the commissioners had a power of deciding any point relative to the dispute; but by the second commission it was ordered, that they should be unanimous; and also it was further directed by the first commission, that the inquiry should determine the two principal points in dispute, viz., the admeasurement of the seven miles and the true situation of Kirkley road; whereas the burgesses of Yarmouth, by this second commission so ordered the business, that when the parties appeared before the commissioners, they confined the inquiry solely to the situation of Kirkley road, and withheld from them every information that related to the admeasurement of the seven miles; and also had given previous directions for Mr. Rowse to be absent from the meeting, which consequently rendered every resolution of the Commissioners void, as by the commission they were directed to be unanimous.

To Sir Arthur Heneningham and Sir Henry Woodhouse, Knts., and Henry Gawdy, Esq., and to Sir Robert Jermyn, and Sir John Higham, Knts., and William Rowse, Esq.

Whereas, we gave orders and directions unto you, for the appeasing of the controversy between the town of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, concerning their liberties, to measure the seven miles claimed by them of Yarmouth for their jurisdiction, from the key of Yarmouth; whereby they pretend the same will be very prejudicial to their charter, antient liberties, and other rights. And they also alledge, that by a statute of the 31st of Edward III, the said seven miles ought to be accounted from the uttermost bounds of the haven (i.e. from the mouth), which hath been extended, in memory of man, a mile further towards the south than it is now. These, therefore, shall be to require you, that according to your former directions you will cause seven miles to be measured from the key at Yarmouth, and likewise seven miles to be measured from the uppermost bounds of their haven; and to be unanimous in your opinion, and to certify unto us how far each admeasurement doth extend; and in the mean season to forbear setting up any marks or bounds until we shall consider of the same, and give such further orders therein as shall be agreeable to reason and equity, and satisfaction of both parties.

Lord Keeper, Lord Treasurer, Lord Cobbham, Lord Buckhurst, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Concordat cum Registro Exor.

JOHN WOOLEY. Keeper of the Records of the Councell Chamber. 8th July, 1596.

On the 4th day of August, 1596, all the Commissioners nominated in the first commission, together with the bailiffs and principal inhabitants of Yarmouth assembled at Lowestoft; and the Commissioners, as directed by their commission, intended to have made the admeasurement of the seven miles the first object of their inquiry; but the Yarmouth men objected against this mode of proceeding, and insisted upon inverting the order of the enquiry, and that the ascertaining of the true situation of Kirkley road ought to be the first business that engaged their attention. The Commissioners so far acquiesced in this unreasonable demand, as to employ about four hours in investigating the exact situation of Kirkley road, and limiting its boundaries; but when the Yarmouth men began to discover that the result of the inquiry would be prejudicial to their interests, as well as contrary to their expectations, they then produced the new commission, which effectually answered all the purposes they had been aiming at; and notwithstanding the Commissioners made a proposal of sending for Mr. Rowse, the absent Commissioner, and also of suspending any further proceedings till he should arrive and concur with them in their deliberations, yet all these offers proved wholly unavailable, and nothing would satisfy the desires of the Yarmouth men but an acquiescence on the part of Lowestoft in such a decision respecting the situation of Kirkley road and the extent of its boundaries, as the bailiffs themselves thought proper.

In consequence of these illegal and unreasonable proceedings on the part of Yarmouth, the commission was dissolved. Nevertheless the Commissioners on the part of Lowestoft were so perfectly convinced of the oppressive designs of the Yarmouth men, as well as apprehensions of the inevitable ruin that would ensue to the inhabitants of Lowestoft, that before they broke up, they unanimously resolved to present a certificate of their proceedings to the Lords of the Privy Council, both for remonstrating against the unjust and unlawful proceedings of the Yarmouth men, as also to represent to their lordships, the apparent poverty and distress which threatened the town of Lowestoft.

The CERTIFICATE of Sir Robert Jermyn and Sir John Higham, Knts., and Anthony Wingfield, Esq., on the part of Lowestoft; shewing the unnecessary shifts, delays, and hard dealings of the Yarmouth men and the necessity of ending the controversy:

Our humble duties to your honours remembered.—May it please the same to be advertised, That by authority of your lordships’ letters to us and others directed, concerning the deciding of the controversies arisen between the township of Yarmouth, and the inhabitants of Lowestoft, proceeding from the certificate of the Honourable Sir John Fortescue, knt., Justice Clench and Justice Gawdy, we met together at the town of Lowestoft, whither the Commissioners named for Yarmouth, together with the bailiffs and chief inhabitants of Yarmouth, did also make their repair; and upon our meeting we desired that we might employ ourselves about the measuring of seven miles from Yarmouth to Lowestoft; but that would not be allowed of, but only to search and try out where, and how far Kirkley road did extend, upon which two points the whole of your honours’ commandment did consist, in which, after hearing the learned councell on both sides, we had spent at the least four hours about the extent of Kirkley road only, and had heard the effect of sundry affidavits taken and returned upon several writs of ad quad dampnum, mentioning the said Kirkley road: at length the bailiffs of Yarmouth delivered to us and the other Commissioners, a letter of your honours, which they had kept in their hands at the least five days, and had suffered some of us not only to travel almost fifty miles, but also to spend so many hours as we have before expressed, about a question, which upon the receipt of this your honours’ second letter, we had no authority to deal in; namely, the second point, or to describe the situation of Kirkley road. Also, in the proceeding of that letter, they omitted the name of Anthony Wingfield, Esq., who was then absent and had caused the name of William Rouse, Esq., to be put in; and also had gotten the letter so indited, as that the whole number of the said six commissioners must need agree to the measure of the said seven miles, and which could not be done by reason Mr. Rowse was absent; and although an offer was made to send for Mr. Rowse, and so to proceed to the admeasurement, yet in the end they would not proceed to it, except the Lowestoft men would confess that Kirkley road extended as far as the Yarmouth men would have it. All which proceedings we are bold to signify to your honours to prove the unnecessary delays, and hard and unjust proceedings of the Yarmouth men, and the desire they have to enjoy their private gain in the herring fishing shortly approaching, to the utter impoverishing and undoing of the poor inhabitants of Lowestoft, if by your honours’ favours they be not relieved; and whose lamentable estate, arising from the hard measure and unjust delays of the said Yarmouth men, do move us, in consideration of them, to be bold to offer to your lordships’ view, the hard dealings in this cause; and in their behalfs humbly to entreat your most honourable and speedy relief in this their grievous distress. And thus very humbly we take our leaves of your good lordships.