Lowestoft in olden times

by Francis Davy Longe

Part II.—Rise of Lowestoft, and Parliamentary War with Yarmouth.

The free trade policy of the Statute of Herrings had not the desired effect of reducing the price of herrings, and the condition of Yarmouth was getting worst. Her haven was again becoming unnavigable, and merchants were leaving the town. On the cliff, a mile south of the mouth of the harbour, the little town of Lowestoft was growing up, and beginning to take an important share in the trade on which Yarmouth depended for her existence. It was under these circumstances that Yarmouth petitioned the King to giant her a charter which could protect her trade against the competition of Lowestoft, and mitigate the evil caused by the blocking up of the mouth of her harbour.

Edward III. had every reason to befriend Yarmouth, and to prevent the ruin of an important naval town. So in 1371 he issued a Commission to enquire how far the charter demanded by Yarmouth would be advantageous or disadvantageous to the country. The Commission reported in favour of the grant, and in 1373 the charter was granted which was to put the towns of Yarmouth and Lowestoft at loggerheads for some 300 years, and involve them in bouts of costly litigation.

The effect of the charter was to give Yarmouth two strings to her bow against Lowestoft.

(1) It annexed to Yarmouth the “place in the high seas called Kirkley Road” i.e. the whole of the roads along the coast from Pakefield to the mouth of Yarmouth harbour, wherever that might happen to be, and gave the Yarmouth Bailiffs the right of taking the same tolls from ships discharging cargo in any part of these roads, which they were empowered to take from ships inside the harbour.

(2) It prohibited the buying and selling of herrings during the time of the Autumnal fair at any place on sea or land, within “7 leucæ” of the town of Great Yarmouth, except at the town itself, and gave the Bailiffs authority to seize any ship &c. from which any herrings were sold in contravention of the charter.

As it was stated in the report of the Commission, on which this charter was granted, that Lowestoft was 5 “leucæ” from Yarmouth, it is clear that it was intended to include Lowestoft in the prohibition. It is also clear than the word “leuca” was used to denote a distance of nearly two miles. There was no legally established measure of distance at this time. Our statute mile was not established until 200 years afterwards, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign.

That the Yarmouth merchants had some reason to desire the protection of their trade against the competition of Lowestoft, is shown by a statement in a letter of complaint written from Yarmouth to the Barons of the Cinque Ports some years afterwards, in which they are blamed for not enforcing the observance of the charter by their own fishermen, and requiring them to take their fish to Yarmouth, “for if they can deliver at Lowestoft, they will bring very few or none to us.” [39]

Such being the intention of the Charter you will not be surprised to learn that it met with strenuous opposition from Lowestoft.

Lowestoft Men Prosecuted by the Yarmouth Bailiffs for Contravention of this Charter.

When the foreign and west country fishing boats appeared in the Roads in the autumn, and the Lowestoft men went out, as usual, with their boats to buy herring from the ships at anchor off the denes, officers appeared from Yarmouth armed with authority from the Bailiffs, to enforce the new law, and to seize any ships selling or discharging herrings in contravention of their charter. They found a large number of Lowestoft men purchasing herrings from ships within the prohibited area, but instead of attempting to seize the ships, which was their proper remedy under the charter, they took the more prudent course of prosecuting the buyers, and some 25 Lowestoft men were summoned before the Yarmouth Bailiffs. They met the indictment brought against them by an appeal, and it was removed by writ of certiorari to the King’s court in Westminster Hall. The indictment states, after reciting the charter,—

“That on Friday next after the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist (18th October) John Botild of Lowestoft bought of John Trampt of Ostend, an alien, in the said place called Kirkley Road, which is within the 7 leuks, twenty-five lasts of new herring (value 50 pounds.) and the said alien took his boat, (value 20 shilling) out of the ship, and in the night elongated himself (i.e. ran away) to his own proper house, and hauled the boat ashore, so that the said bailiffs could not touch the said herring, nor the boat, nor the ship, to arrest them, because the aforesaid alien had by the advice of the said John Botild elongated himself, nor could they thence by any means answer it as a forteiture to the Lord the King.”

The defence of the Lowestoft men was that the prohibited area only extended as far as a place called “Stampard” (the Stanford channel?) construing the term “leuca”, as equivalent to “mile,” (which was the construction afterwards put upon it); and that the ships from which they bought herrings were lying beyond this distance. The trial of the appeal came on before the King at Westminster Hall in the Spring term of 1374, but was adjourned for further hearing; a proceeding caused probably by the congested state of business in the Law Courts, an inconvenience to suitors not unknown even at the present time. What the end of the case was we are not informed, but it evidently went against Lowestoft. Meanwhile the Lowestoft people had appealed to another power. In 1376 they presented a petition to Parliament for the repeal of the obnoxious charter.

First Revocation of Edward’s Charter to Yarmouth.

Their petition was supported by another from the Commons of the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Northampton, Bedford, Bucks, Leicester and other counties. Such was the importance to the country of our growing town at the end of 14th century!!

Parliament made very short work of the business, and the King was compelled to withdraw his charter. This he did in the following somewhat ungracious terms—

“Edward by the grace of God, King of England &c. Know ye that we, the liberties and privileges of 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 alleging that those privileges and liberties 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, &c. have revoked and totally made void.”

It is a curious coincidence which adds much to the interest of our story, that this petition from our old townspeople was one of the several hundred introduced in this Parliament, which is known in history as the “Good Parliament” owing to the number of popular measures which were passed by it. The popular Prince of Wales, Edward the Black Prince, was still living, and the Commons had his support against the Crown party led by his uncle, John of Gaunt.

In the following year (1377) the old King dies, and Richard II., then a boy of 11, becomes our ruler. Yarmouth lost no time in taking advantage of the opportunity which the succession of a new government offered for re-opening the question. She succeeded in getting another Commission of enquiry which apparently confined its labours to hearing the Yarmouth case. Without hearing Lowestoft, they reported that Yarmouth was a “walled town capable of resisting the King’s enemies,” but that Lowestoft was, “not inclosed and was incapable of defence.” They accordingly advised that Edward’s charter should be regranted.

The following Parliament (1378) was not held at Westminster as usual. The popular Prince of Wales was dead; and John of Gaunt and the Crown party were having their own way. It appears that he had got into bad relations with the citizens of London owing to the killing of a knight at Westminster by his retainers, and he thought it safer under the circumstances that the Commons should not be invited to meet there; so he got the King to summon his Parliament to meet at Gloucester. At such a distance the Commons of the Eastern Counties were not likely to attend in their full numbers; nor were those who did sit in this Parliament allowed to take the influential part in its proceedings which they had taken in the previous parliament. From these or other causes the Crown party had their own way, and Yarmouth got its charter regranted and confirmed.

Proclamation of the Charter at Lowestoft.

The task was then imposed upon the under sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk of proclaiming the obnoxious law at Lowestoft. How it was received appears from the sheriffs account of the riot which took place on the occasion, for which May day seems to have been selected, on account doubtless of it’s being a holiday, when his majesty’s liege subjects of Lowestoft would be able all to attend and listen to the royal proclamation.

“On which day the aforesaid under sheriff at Lowestoft attended to proclaim the aforesaid liberties and he openly shewed the letters patent of the Lord the King on that account, when there came Martin Terry, Stephen Shelford. Henry Freeborn, and Emma his wife, John Spencer, and Alice his wife, &c. &c. with a great company of men and women of the town aforesaid of whose names they are ignorant by the abetment and procurement of William Hannell, John Blower, Thomas de Wade, Richard Skinner, William Large &c., and violently resisted and hindered him, some saying to the sheriff they would not suffer him to depart, others forcing his letters from him and saying (among other language used on the occasion which is unfortunately or perhaps fortunately obliterated)—that if he dared any more to come for any execution of the Lord the King he should not escape. So 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 head of his men and servants to the pernicious example and contempt of the Lord the King and against his peace.”

What does loyal Lowestoft think of this behaviour of their old town’s people, in almost the first scene in which they appear in the stage of history!! It is evident from this story that there were two classes represented in this riot, a large number of people men and women, who took an active part in it, and several leading persons, the merchants probably of the period, who “procured and abetted” them.

The treatment which the king’s proclamation and the under-sheriff met with at Lowestoft, was duly inquired into by the sheriff, but we are not informed of the punishment enforced upon the rioters. The Lowestoft people, however, lost no time in making another appeal for the assistance of the Commons. On this occasion they were supported by the Commons of the county of Norfolk, as well as by those of Suffolk.

The Charter Revoked a Second Time.

Another commission of enquiry was appointed in 1380 under the presidency of the Chief Justice Tresilian, who sat with his colleagues, representing Lowestoft and Yarmouth, one day at Norwich and on the second at Lowestoft, and heard evidence on behalf of each town. This Commission reported in favour of Lowestoft, and in the following year the Parliament, sitting at Westminster, repealed the grant, and the young king was compelled to follow the course taken by his grandfather, and declared his charter to be “revoked and utterly made void” (1381).

Yarmouth however had too much confidence in her claim on the Crown to give up the struggle, and the next year she again petitions the King to restore her charter.

The Charter Regranted a Third Time.

The young King now 17 years old, was so anxious to learn the merits of the important contest, that he himself paid a visit to Yarmouth in 1382. We do not hear that he came to Lowestoft, or that he ascertained the precise position of “the place called Kirkley Road.” He was probably shown the town walls, and the devastation caused by the plague, (which the Yarmouth people seem to have attributed to the repeal of their charter). He and his courtiers were feasted by the Bailiffs and Burgesses, with the same judicious munificence, with which 200 years afterwards they treated Leicester and the other noblemen of Elizabeth’s court, when she was staying at Norwich, and was invited to visit Yarmouth, under very similar circumstances. Richard was much impressed with what he saw and was told at Yarmouth, particularly that “a great part of the people had left the town on account of their charter having been repealed,” and in 1384 he took upon himself to issue an ordinance re-granting the charter until the next sitting of Parliament.

The Charter Revoked a Third Time.

In 1385 the Parliament met at Westminster. The Commons were still staunch in their support of Lowestoft, and the King was again compelled to revoke his ordinance, and to declare that all the charters given to Yarmouth by his grandfather and himself were utterly void.

A New Charter Granted by Richard.

The next year, however, from causes of which we are not informed, we find that a great change took place in the conditions of the contest. In the Parliament of 1386 we find the Commons themselves supporting the cause of Yarmouth, and petitioning the crown to regrant their charter, notwithstanding the persistency with which they had opposed it in previous years. The King of course acceded at once to this petition, and a new charter was granted to Yarmouth, embracing all the provisions of the charter of Edward, and welding more tightly the fetters which were intended to crush the trade of Lowestoft.

This charter has never been revoked and in 1826 it was cited by the Town Clerk of Yarmouth before the committee of the House of Commons, when the Bill for making a harbour at Lowestoft was under consideration.

This game of see-saw between Crown and Parliament with reference to the Yarmouth Charter, was an episode in the struggle which was going on between these Powers during the whole of the 14th century and which forms an important chapter in our constitutional history. The result of the contest as regards the fortunes of the two towns would seem to have been a complete triumph for Yarmouth; involving restrictions on the trade of Lowestoft, which were intended to deprive it of any share in the herring trade, beyond the produce of their own fishing boats. This however was by no means the actual result. The obnoxious charter proved to be perfectly harmless to Lowestoft, if not entirely useless to Yarmouth. It was beyond the power of Yarmouth to enforce it effectually. The statue of Herrings, forbidding the “forestalling” of the Free Fair by buying herrings from ships at sea, applied to the Yarmouth merchants as well as to Lowestoft men. The anomalous right given to the Yarmouth Bailiffs of exacting harbour dues from ships anchored in the sea, at a distance of several miles from their harbour mouth, must have been incapable of enforcement, without a fleet of armed bailiffs. It would appear that Yarmouth made little or no attempt to enforce the provisions of the charter against Lowestoft merchants buying herrings within the 7 leucæ, and contented themselves with claiming harbour dues from the ships which discharged their herrings there. In this claim they had for some years the assistance of the Lowestoft merchants themselves, who undertook to farm the tolls of the town. They paid as much as £26 a year for these tolls in the years 1393–4–6. This blackmail was, however, soon reduced, and in a few years the task of collecting the tolls was left in the hands of the Yarmouth Bailiffs themselves.

In 1400 we find Yarmouth giving up altogether the attempt to enforce their charter, and entering into an agreement with Lowestoft, which gave express sanction to their purchasing herrings from ships lying off their shore. This agreement was entitled “An accord or composition between Yarmouth and Lowestoft that the latter might buy herrings in Kirkley Road upon conditions therein specified.” The Lowestoft merchants were allowed to buy fish from all ships that were not “hosted” to Yarmouth merchants i.e., from ships whose owners had not entered into engagements with Yarmouth merchants to sell their fish to them, or through them, as their agents (an arrangement, very necessary for foreigners in those days); and the Lowestoft merchants might buy also from these ships herrings which the Yarmouth “hosts” did not require for themselves, upon payment of half a mark per last to the hosts, in addition to the price of the fish. This “Composition” was formally sanctioned by the King in Council, and was issued by “Letters patent” in the 2nd. year of Henry IV. As we do not hear of any further litigation between Lowestoft and Yarmouth for 200 years, we may take it that the first contest between the two towns was closed by this agreement, whether this long truce was due to it, or to other causes.

Swinden in his history of Yarmouth ends here his story of “The Contest about Kirkley Road.” He promised another chapter in which he would have had to deal with the renewal of the contest by Yarmouth in the 16th and again in the 17th centuries. This chapter was not written. He probably found a difficulty in treating the later episodes of the story, which must have been a very sore subject between the two towns even when he was writing.

Our interest in it is now purely archæological. The story though somewhat tedious cannot be dispensed with in a history of Lowestoft, any more than the ghost’s story in Hamlet. It is the story of the growth of Lowestoft from a small village into a fishing town of some importance to the country. Her trade was probably growing rapidly during the whole period that the contest lasted. But from the beginning of the 15th century her merchants were free to take their full share in the herring trade, and in any other trade, which the position of the town would enable them to develope; though without a harbour, her merchants, whether as fishing adventurers, or as general merchants, must have had a very limited range for their enterprises.