The men of Lothingland, who had, probably, formed the highest expectations of success, from the great power and credit of their patron, the Earl of Richmond now saw themselves left entirely to the mercy of the elated burgesses, who, on all occasions, exerted their power over them with a malevolence considerably inflamed by the late dissensions; they had also the mortification to see that power fixed upon the strongest and most unalterable basis, by an extensive charter, confirming all their former rights, and adding many valuable liberties to those they already enjoyed.
Thus ended this litigious and destructive controversy, in which the inhabitants of Lothingland had been engaged for more than one hundred years. The motives which actuated each party were strictly the same; the one strove for the continuance of those liberties which Henry’s charter had deprived them of; the other, to retain the rights they had acquired, so beneficial to themselves, at the expense of their neighbours. It is not to be doubted, that this was considered by the men of Yarmouth as an object of the highest importance. A grant which gave a restrictive trading power to one place, in prejudice to another, must, of course, draw within its gates all those who wished to advance their interest, or enlarge their property.
The well-being of any commercial town must depend upon the conveniency of its situation for traffic, but, in this case, their opponents were equally fortunate as themselves; the same stream flowing equally between them, and the same conveyance which brought emolument to the one, would have carried opulence to the other. To the final determination of this controversy in their favour, the town of Yarmouth is chiefly indebted for the prosperity it now enjoys; whilst its rivals, Gorleston and Little Yarmouth, are sunk into obscure villages, and particularly the latter, of which hardly anything more than the name remains. In the following year, the earl of Richmond, who had gone over into France, to settle some matters relative to the estate which he there held as earl of Britainy, died in that kingdom, without issue, and was succeeded to his manors and estates by John de Dreux, son of Arthur, earl of Britainy; and he dying in 1342, they were granted by Edward III. to John, duke of Britainy, and earl of Montford in France; who was advanced to this dignity on account of his adherence to the interest of king Edward in that kingdom, for which cause the king of France had seized upon his possessions. [8]
After the above decision, which established the burgesses of Great Yarmouth, in the peaceable possession of all their ancient privileges, the animosities and disturbances, which had agitated the contending parties for a century past, appear to have subsided; and they maintained a more friendly intercourse with each other, without any material interruption, until the reign of Queen Elizabeth; but, in the 12th year of the reign of that princess, new dissensions arose, which were combated with a considerable degree of violence and animosity, between the burgesses of Great Yarmouth, and Sir Henry Jerningham and his tenants, the men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, concerning divers liberties claimed by Great Yarmouth, respecting the free fair holden at the said town; and also concerning a parcel of waste ground, lying on the south side of the haven’s mouth, near the town of Gorleston; which, some time ago, when the course of the haven extended to the south of Corton, was situate between the neck of the haven and the main sea; and because the said haven had at this time a shorter neck or passage to the sea, obtained by the town of Great Yarmouth, at an immense expense, and was brought further to the north, consequently the above-mentioned waste ground must lie to the south of the haven’s mouth, as then situated; and as Sir Henry Jerningham was owner, not only of the town of Gorleston, but also of the greater part of Lothingland in which Gorleston is situated, the claim of the burgesses of Yarmouth must materially affect the property of Sir Henry. In order therefore, to restore peace and tranquility to the several parties, the matter in dispute was referred to the arbitration of Sir Christopher Heydon, and Sir William Butts, knights, by virtue of a commission from the Star-Chamber, who finally determined the difference in such a fair and equitable manner, as met with the approbation of both parties.
But, notwithstanding this affair was so amicably adjusted, fresh disputes arose, shortly after, between the town of Great Yarmouth and some neighbouring towns, respecting a fair that was held at Gorleston; and as Queen Elizabeth, at that time, happened to be at Norwich, her majesty deputed several lords of her retinue to proceed to Yarmouth, and survey the premises; which orders being accordingly executed, they made a report thereof to the Queen; and the following letter from the Privy Council, was sent to the Sheriff and Justices of the county of Suffolk, respecting the same.
A copy of the letter sent from the Lords of the Queen’s Majesty’s Privy Council, to the Sheriff, and also the Justices of Suffolk, in August, 1578, after that the Lord Treasurer, the Lord of Leicester, and others of the Council, had viewed and seen the town; (all these noblemen were elegantly entertained at the priory, at the town’s expense) the Queen being at Norwich, on her tour at the time. [9a]
After our hearty commendations—Whereas the town of Great Yarmouth is situated upon the frontiers of the sea, in the county of Norfolk, near the county of Suffolk; and great care has been taken by the ancestors of our Sovereign Lady, the Queen’s Majesty, for the maintenance and preservation of the said town, and divers liberties and privileges have been granted, by the progenitors of her majesty, to that intent and purpose; amongst which there is one privilege, granted unto the burgesses of the town of Great Yarmouth, that no fair or market should be kept or holden at any place or places within seven leuks [9b] of the said town, either of fish in general, or herrings in particular, or any other kind of merchandizes, but only at the town of Great Yarmouth: which said grants and liberties are thought very necessary to be continued and protected, for that the Yarmouth men do expend great costs and charges upon the haven belonging to the said town. We understanding, nevertheless, that divers and sundry persons heretofore have sought, and do daily seek, to keep and hold a fair, for buying, selling, and delivering herrings, and other fish, and divers other merchandizes, at the town of Gorleston, in the county of Suffolk, which is within the mouth of the said haven of Yarmouth. We have therefore, thought good to charge and require, you that you give due information unto the inhabitants of the said town of Gorleston, and to all other persons repairing thither, that they suffer no such fair or market, or any buying, selling or delivering of herrings, or any other fish or merchandise, at the said town, or at any other place within the said haven of Great Yarmouth, but only at the said town, or in the road of the said town, at any time or times, from the beginning of the herring fair or fishing, now, next ensuing, until the end of the said herring fair or fishing, as they tender Her Majesty’s pleasure, and will answer the contrary at their perils. And if you shall receive information of any person or persons, either seller or buyer, that shall be obstinate, or act contrary to this Her Majesty’s command, you shall bind the said persons to appear before us, to answer their contempt in that behalf. And, finally, we desire you to use all the good means you can, to see the design of this our letter put in due execution. And so we bid you heartily farewell.
Your loving friends, &c.
From Thetford, the 27th August, 1578.
In consequence of this letter the men of Gorleston, Lowestoft, and other towns upon the coast, in the county of Suffolk, presented a petition to Her Majesty’s Privy Council, praying to have this letter recalled. Whereupon the burgesses of Yarmouth sent up immediately to the Privy Council, William Harebrowne and Thomas Damett, with their charters and decrees, to answer the complaints presented by the above-mentioned towns; and succeeded so far in their application as to obtain the following decree, which was issued forth by the Lords of the Privy Council, and which finally determined the dispute. [10]
A Decree, made by the Lords and others of the Queen’s Majesty’s Privy Council, upon a matter in controversy between the town of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, and the towns of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, and other towns, in Suffolk, after divers hearings of both parties; and put in writing and subscribed the four and twentieth day of February, in the one and twentieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady, the Queen’s Majesty, Elizabeth, and in the year of our Lord one thousand, five hundred and eighty.
Whereas, upon complaint exhibited before us by Henry Gunvyle, of Gorleston, and John Hoo, of Gunton, gent.; William Frenche, of Lowestoft, and John Fox, of Aldborough, merchants; as well in their own names, as also in the names of the inhabitants of the said towns, and of other coast towns of Suffolk, against the bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty of the town of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk; the substance of which complaint and controversy consisteth in this: Whether, by the liberties belonging to the said town of Great Yarmouth, all kinds of merchandize, and also herrings and all other fish, being brought into the haven of Great Yarmouth, should, be unladen and discharged at the said town of Great Yarmouth, or elsewhere (saving only to Gorleston and Little Yarmouth, their own proper merchandize, and fish, brought in their own bottoms, and none other; but excepting such ships belonging to these towns as are laden with wool, leather, wool-skins, and other merchandize, whereof great custom ought to be paid, and to be discharged in the port where the Queen’s Majesty’s trone [11] and seal called the Coquet do remain). Which liberty is challenged by the said town of Great Yarmouth: and, for support thereof, there have been shewed forth sundry charters, judgments, and decrees, all affirming the said liberties to belong to Great Yarmouth; and not by any allegations for the other parties, justly disproved.
And, forasmuch, as upon the deliberate hearing of the allegations of both parties, concerning the said controversy, there hath not been shewn before us any sufficient matter to make void the said liberties, challenged by the said town of Great Yarmouth, by virtue of their charters: We do therefore order and decree that the said town of Great Yarmouth, and the bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty thereof, shall stand possessed of, and quietly hold and enjoy, the said liberties, by them claimed according to their said charters; and that no delivering, buying, or selling of herrings, or any other fish, or any merchandizes, coming into the said haven be made, kept, or holden, but only at the said town of Great Yarmouth, or where the bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty of the said town will appoint the same to be done, and not elsewhere: excepting only to the said towns of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, and the inhabitants thereof, liberty to land and receive, at the said towns, all such herrings, and other fish, and merchandizes, as shall be their own, and taken and brought into that haven in their own boats and vessels, without any colouring, fraud, or covyn (saving those ships belonging to the said towns of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, as are laden with wool, leather, wool-skins, and other things, whereof great customs ought to be paid, which shall be discharged in the port of Great Yarmouth, and at the same place where the Queen’s Majesty’s trone and seal, called the Coquet) do remain, and not elsewhere.
And, for the better publication and observation of this our order and decree, we do not only will and require the said complainants to publish the tenor thereof, in the said coast towns, but, also, have ordered, that the justices of assizes of the said county, shall be by us required to give in charge to the Justices of the Peace there, to have good regard, that the same may be performed, and put in the execution, without any manner of disturbance; and, that if any person or persons shall wilfully disobey this order, that then the next justice of the peace of the said county, shall take sufficient bond of the said party to appear before us, and to answer his contempt in that behalf. And this our order and decree shall stand and remain in full force, until such time as the said complainants, or any other persons, in behalf of the said towns, shall justly shew, and prove before us, such good matter as may move us to revoke this our present or derand decree.
Given at Westminster, the day and year above written,
(Signed,)
Lord Burleigh, Lord Lincoln, Lord Sussex, Lord Warwick,
Lord Leicester, Lord Hunsdon, Sir Francis Knolly’s,
Sir James Crofte, Sir Christopher Hatton, Sir Francis
Walsingham, Sir Walter Mildmay; T. Wilson, Secretary.
Afterwards in the year 1616 we find the bailiffs of Great Yarmouth petitioning for leave to extend their jurisdiction, or power, on the west side of the haven; but it does not appear, that they ever acquired any authority there till the 20th of Charles II., when Southtown was incorporated with Great Yarmouth; for about that time Sir Robert Paston, being desirous of adjusting the differences which had for so many years subsisted between the town of Great Yarmouth and Little Yarmouth (or Southtown) and Gorleston, brought a bill into the House of Commons in the year 1664, for incorporating the former with Southtown, which was accordingly effected.