The AFFIDAVIT or JAMES MUNDS, of LOWESTOFT.
James Munds, of Lowestoft, Suffolk, fisherman, aged sixty years and upwards, maketh oath, that he has used the trade of fishing forty-five years and upwards, last past, upon the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk; and that the western fishermen and strangers have constantly, during the time of the free fair kept at Yarmouth, delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft aforesaid, to several merchants inhabiting in the said town, without any disturbance or molestation, till this last year the men of Yarmouth sent out a vessel, which they called a man-of-war, furnished with five and twenty men, and several weapons of war, which anchored in the roads of Lowestoft the chiefest part of the season, daily chasing the fishermen, so that none durst deliver any herrings, to their great damage, and, if not timely prevented, to their utter ruin and undoing.
JAMES MUNDS.
Prob. 30th die Januarii, A.D. 1660, Corum me in Cancell. Magistro,
Thomas Escowtr.
The AFFIDAVIT of ROGER HOOPER, of RAMSGATE.
Roger Hooper, of Ramsgate, Kent, aged forty-six, or thereabouts, maketh oath that he hath used the trade of herring fishing four and thirty years, last past, upon the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk; and that the western fishermen, his neighbours, and others, and also strangers, have constantly, during the time of the free fair kept at Yarmouth, delivered herrings in the road of Lowestoft aforesaid, to several merchants, inhabitants there, without any molestation, until this last year, when the Yarmouth men sent out a vessel, which they called a ‘man-of-war,’ to ride in the roads of Lowestoft the chiefest part of the season; which man-of-war threatened him, that if he delivered any herrings at Lowestoft, they would seize him. So that none dare deliver any herrings, to their great damage, and, if not timely prevented, to the utter undoing of their voyage.
ROGER HOOPER.
Prob. Febru. 1660. Corum me in Cancell. Magistro.
Byred.
Having been grievous sufferers for our constant fidelity to his sacred Majesty; several times plundered, grievously burthened with taxes above the neighbouring towns, soldiers living at free quarters, great losses by sea, depopulated of our principal inhabitants by their being engaged in his majesty’s service, as Captains Allen, Utber, Canham and Whiting, besides a great number of our common seamen, and many who have lost their lives in contending with these oppressors, and also a most lamentable fire in this town, which consumed 140 houses, together with tackling and goods to the amount of ten thousand pounds and upwards, for which we never had any favour. And now having made large provisions for the fishery of all sorts, as also for the receiving, salting, and drying such herrings as they should bring in being able to hang in this town about 700 lasts, which time out of mind, have been the sole subsistance of this town, are now bespoiled at once, and like to perish, if speedy remedy be not obtained, being no ways able to wage war with them, for reasons above.
We therefore humbly pray, etc.
The SECOND ORDER of the town of GREAT YARMOUTH to THOMAS ALLEN to ENTER CORTON ROAD, LOWESTOFT ROAD, and KIRKLEY ROAD, to PROTECT the LIBERTIES of the said town of GREAT YARMOUTH.
Whereas Thomas Allen was late ordered by us, the bailiffs and justices of the burgh and town of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, her under named, to go into Corton road, Lowestoft road, and Kirkley road, Suffolk, with a vessel and a convenient company, to take notice of such persons, strangers and others, as shall there deliver any herrings or other merchandise, during the time of the free fair here at Great Yarmouth, contrary to our liberties and charters; and to seize such vessels and merchandise, as forfeited to the king’s majesty, and to bring the same into the haven of this town. And we did also order the said Thomas Allen, with his company, to demand and take in the said several roads such duties as were or should be due to this town of Great Yarmouth for anchorage of ships and vessels in these roads, or for any other cause, which said orders by us so given unto the said Thomas Allen, were done by virtue of an act or ordinance of common councel of the said town of Great Yarmouth. And whereas the said Thomas Allen, by virtue of our said order unto him given, did go into the said road of Lowestoft, with a convenient vessel and competent number of men, to execute the orders by us given unto him; and was there opposed by the chief men of the said town of Lowestoft, who came upon the said Thomas Allen and his company in the road of that town, violently and riotously in boats, and with force of arms, etc., drave him and them out of that road, threatening them otherwise to fire their vessel; whereby the said Thomas Allen, with his vessel and company, was enforced to come away without doing anything. Now, therefore, we the said bailiffs and justices, do again order, authorise, and appoint the said Thomas Allen to go with a competent vessel and company of men, and with convenient weapons for their defence into the said roads of Corton, Lowestoft, and Kirkley, from time to time, during the time of the free fair here at Great Yarmouth, and there to do and execute all things, specified in our former order given unto him. In witness whereof we the said bailiffs and justices have hereunto set our hands and seals this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, six hundred and sixty.
NICHO. CUTTINGE, JAMES SYMONDS,
(Bailiffs.)JOHN CARTER, GEORGE ENGLAND.
JO. WODROFFE.
The adjoining towns of Pakefield and Kirkley also lodged complaints before the Privy Council, against the Yarmouth men, similar to those from Lowestoft, so did likewise Hastings, Dover, Rye, and other towns of the western coast; and afterwards some private adventurers in those parts of England did not scruple, on this important occasion, to petition the throne to protect them from the despotic designs of the Yarmouth men.
TO the right honourable the LORDS of his MAJESTY’S most honourable PRIVY COUNCIL.
The CERTIFICATE of the sea coast towns of PAKEFIELD and KIRKLEY, in the county of Suffolk.
Humbly certifying,
That the said towns are joining upon the sea, and divided by one street, subsisting chiefly by the fishing trade. And that we never knew, or heard our forefathers speak of any roads lying against or near the said town, called by the name of Kirkley road, but Pakefield bay or hithe, and Lowestoft roads; nor was there ever any road near our said town so called, but by the men of Yarmouth, on purpose to engross the whole of the fishery; and monopolise the whole trade to themselves; whilst, in truth, our town of Kirkley is near three miles southwards of the pole set up to the northward of Lowestoft, always accounted the boundary of the seven miles granted to the town of Yarmouth, measured from their crane key, and to be the uttermost extent of their privileges. Nevertheless, in the year 1657, two or three days after Michaelmas, as Thomas Fowler the elder, and Thomas Fowler the younger, of our said towns, were, for delivering of herrings betwixt our town of Kirkley and Lowestoft, at their next going to Yarmouth, had before the bailiff, who set a fine upon each of them, of £40 a-piece, which they were commanded to pay, or else their boats and tackling would be confiscated. But after alleging their poor condition, they mitigated it to £30, and at last to £20 a man, which they were compelled to lay down upon the table; and large writings were produced for them to sign and seal, to indemnify the said bailiff, which if they would do, they would take but £5 a man; but one of the Fowlers desiring to understand the contents of the writings, and beginning to read, Mr. Bailiff England interrupted him, and said that if he would not seal it, he should pay the whole £20; so that they were obliged to seal they knew not what, and were dismissed by each of them paying £5. Such is the great bondage of the poor fishermen. In testimony of the truth, we the inhabitants of the said towns have hereunto subscribed our names this 14th day of January, 1660; and are ready to aver the same upon oath when we shall be thereunto required.
Robert Bronsby, William Richman, William Gogoe,
Thomas Colby, William Thurkittle, Thomas Fowler,
Michael Fowler, William Woods, Thomas Ertis,
John Colby, John Swatt, John Settavaye,
Francis Durrand, William Ertis, William Rouse,
Abell Houlsworte, Thomas Mason, John Mason
Henry Cross, William Brown.
To the right honourable the LORDS of his MAJESTY’S most honourable PRIVY COUNCIL.
The CERTIFICATE of the FISHERMEN of the towns of BRIGHTHELMSTONE, HASTINGS, RYE, DOVER, RAMSGATE, and the rest of the WESTERN FISHERY.
Upon perusal of a petition presented unto the king’s most excellent majesty by the town of Lowestoft, in Suffolk, representing the injurious proceedings of the town of Yarmouth to them, and also the whole Western Fishery; and his majesty’s gracious reference thereupon unto the right honourable the Lords and others of his Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council for satisfaction and relief therein,
We do humbly certify unto your Lordships,
That the Western Fishery, has time out of mind, sold and delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft, until this last year, when the Yarmouth men sent forth a man-of-war (as they term her) not only to affrighten them and others from delivering herrings in the said roads, but also to prevent any that should offer to deliver herrings there. And in case they should presume to deliver any, to seize upon them, and bring them into their haven, to be dealt with accordingly (as by the commission granted to the commander or captain of the said man-of-war may appear); which they have done, not only to the great loss of some particular men, imposing great fines upon them, which they were forced to pay, but also the great discouragement, (and if not in time prevented) the ruin of the whole Western fishery. For if we be forced to deliver our herrings only at Yarmouth, we shall lose at least one-third part of our time, the winds falling so as that sometimes we lye through three or four days before we can get to sea again. Besides, having that advantage, they will give only what they please, which will amount to the loss of near half our time and profit, and will be much to the disadvantage of his Majesty’s subjects in trading, both at home and abroad. Whereas at Lowestoft we have the privilege to make the best of our market, and can go to sea when we please, furnished with all necessaries as plentifully as we can at Yarmouth. The truth of all which we do attest under our hands, humbly praying relief therein.
Signed at Bradstow, Foulstone, Hastings, Ramsgate, Hyde, Dover, Rye, Brighthelmstone, by 469 Western fishers, and others.
Lowestoft answereth, That the said statute of 31 Edward III. is repealed by the statute of 2 Richard II., cap. i.: which grants a free trade for all persons to buy and sell at any place within the realm, notwithstanding any statute, grant or usage to the contrary; and by 46, Edward III., which united Kirkley road to Yarmouth Haven.
Yarmouth alleges, That the anchoring place opposite the town of Kirkley, and the road before the town of Lowestoft, is that Kirkley road mentioned in the grant of 46 Edward III., which united Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven.
Lowestoft answers, That the town of Lowestoft is situated eight or nine miles to the south of Yarmouth; and that a mile further to the south is a village called Kirkley, joining to the head town called Pakefield; before which towns the anchoring places have always been called Pakefield bay or hithe, as by a certificate under the hands of the principal inhabitants of both those said towns doth appear.
Yarmouth says, That the seven miles, which bound their liberties, begin at the haven’s mouth.
Lowestoft answereth, That by the charter of 46 Edward III. the seven miles were confined to the town of Yarmouth.
Yarmouth declareth, That Kirkley road lies at a considerable distance from the haven’s mouth.
Lowestoft answereth, That the situation of it was contiguous to the mouth of the haven at the time when the haven discharged itself into the sea to the south of Corton, 46, Edward III., when the charter was granted for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven.
Yarmouth affirms, That the power and authority derived to them by extending their liberties to the distance of seven miles, were not detrimental to the nation in general, nor to Lowestoft in particular.
Lowestoft answereth, That it is prejudicial to both of them; and grounded their reasons on the two inquisitions held during 5 Richard II.
Yarmouth denieth. That the statute 31 Edward III. was repealed by the general statute 2 Richard II., and also insists, that by the charter 46 Edward III, for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven, their liberties were to extend seven miles from the said haven.
Lowestoft answereth, That the said charter 46 Edward III was repealed by an act 50 Edward III (though the judges declared that the statute 31 Edward III was not repealed) and that the statute 2 Richard II was prejudicial to the kingdom in general: and therefore a complaint was made thereof, in the parliament holden 4 Richard II, and an inquisition was taken by three judges of the realm, who surveyed the premises, and declared, that to extend the liberties of Yarmouth seven miles from the haven’s mouth, was against common right, and that the said statute 2 Richard II was hurtful to the commonwealth; and, consequently, by the statute 5 Richard III, the statute 2 Richard II was repealed.
Yarmouth declareth, that by the statute 10 Richard II all their privileges were confirmed to them, and again by statute 1 queen Elizabeth.
Lowestoft alloweth, that the liberties granted to Yarmouth, 46 Edward III were confirmed by statute 10 Richard II; but concerning the statute 1 Queen Elizabeth that did not relate to the herring fishery, except confining their liberties to seven miles from the town, but to the establishing a court of admiralty at Yarmouth; and, therefore, though the town of Yarmouth, under a pretence of being authorised by that grant, made considerable encroachments on the privileges of Lowestoft, and insisted that their privilege of seven miles was to be measured from the haven’s mouth, and not from the key of Yarmouth, thereby attempting to exclude the town of Lowestoft from the fishery; yet, on complaint thereof being made to her majesty’s privy council, who referred it to the judges, Sir John Fortescue, Justice Clench, and Justice Gawdy, they certified, that it was their opinion, that the seven miles should be measured from the crane key in Yarmouth, towards Lowestoft, and at the termination thereof a post, or some other mark should be erected to denote the same. Whereupon the Lords of the Council, on the 16th May, 1596, after referring the case again to the judges, laid it before the Parliament, who issued an order, in 1597, to Sir Arthur Heneningham, Sir Henry Woodhouse, and Henry Gawdy, Esq., on the part of Yarmouth, and to Sir Robert Jermyn, Sir John Higham, and Anthony Wingfield, Esq., on the part of Lowestoft, to undertake the admeasurement of the said seven miles; accordingly the said admeasurement was actually made, and a great post, denoting the boundary of the liberties of Yarmouth, was erected, which remained unto that day.
Yarmouth insisteth, That a Charter of confirmation, granted to them in the reign of James I., Kirkley road is expressly described as opposite to the town of Kirkley; and that their jurisdiction shall extend from Winterton Ness in Norfolk, to Easton Ness in Suffolk, which is twenty-four miles, and includes the town of Lowestoft, which is only eight or nine miles from Yarmouth; and that by virtue of this jurisdiction, they justify their interruption of the herring fishery at Lowestoft, and all other trades within the extent of their said liberties.
Lowestoft answereth, That such a charter as the Yarmouth men pretend to have obtained, would be a monopoly, and contrary to the common rights of the Kingdom in general. That such a charter, if it was really granted, was obtained privately; that no writs of ad quod dampnum were issued, so that it is evident that they had imposed upon his majesty. That it would be prejudicial to the commonwealth, and the utter ruin of the western fishery, as is testified by above 3000 fishermen, who have subscribed a petition which certifies the truth of this assertion, and prays for relief. That it relates chiefly to the jurisdiction belonging to their court of admiralty, as is evident by their coming with a boat into Lowestoft roads, and demanding sixpence for anchorage. And lastly, That the artifice of having Kirkley road represented in this charter as situated opposite to the town of Kirkley, merely with a design of furnishing themselves with a plausible pretence for extending their liberties beyond the town of Lowestoft, towards the south, and thereby to exclude them from the herring-fishery, was a fraudulent imposition, and a manifest perversion of the Charter 46 Edward III, which represents it as situate near the entrance of Yarmouth haven.
Previous to the report of the attorney-general, a certificate was presented to him from James Wild and Samuel Pacy, two eminent merchants at Lowestoft [90] asserting the reasons why the seven miles, the boundary of the liberties of Yarmouth, ought to be measured from the crane key belonging to the said town of Yarmouth, where the herring fair is usually held, and not from the haven’s mouth.
To the Honourable Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL
The humble CERTIFICATE of the INHABITANTS of the town of LOWESTOFT, in SUFFOLK, shewing the reasons why the seven miles, the extent of the liberties of Yarmouth, in Norfolk, ought to be measured from the crane Key, and not from the haven’s mouth.
1st.—That their fore-fathers being obstructed in their fishing by the Yarmouth men (which time out of mind they had enjoyed), had appealed to her late majesty, queen Elizabeth, to her parliament, and privy council, and obtained an order for setting bounds to the seven miles granted to Yarmouth.
2nd.—In consequence whereof an order was also obtained from the lords of the council, directed to several men of authority in both counties, to make due enquiry concerning the controversy, and survey the premises, in order to ascertain the place from whence the admeasurement ought to begin, which was certified to be from the crane Key in Yarmouth, where the herring fair was usually held. And though the Yarmouth men, thinking themselves aggrieved obtained a second survey to be made, yet was it certified by the inquiries a second time, that they found no reason to depart from their former opinion. The reasons which they assigned, were that it was beneficial to her majesty’s good subjects in general, and the encouragement of the herring fishery in particular.
3rd.—That the order from the council, for the admeasurement of the seven miles, was never revoked, as the Yarmouth men falsely suggested, but only suspended, as by the copy of their letters appears, and though by indirect means they occasioned a delay, and endeavoured to weary the commissioner appointed to settle the controversy with frivolous evasions, yet it was agreed, that the seven miles should be measured from the crane Key, in Yarmouth, directly towards Lowestoft, and a great post should be set up at the end thereof, to denote the same, which remaineth to this day.
4th.—That ever since that time (which was in the year 1595 and 1596) the fishers have freely delivered their herrings in Lowestoft roads, in the time of the free fair at Yarmouth, without any molestation, until this last year, 1660, when they were interrupted by a vessel, called a man-of-war, employed by the Yarmouth men for that purpose.
May it therefore please your honour,
That as this controversy has been for so long standing, and it plainly appearing that no remedy can be obtained but by another admeasurement; that your honour will give credit to the orders and certificates lately pleaded before his majesty in council, as also to the certificates of several thousand fishermen belonging to the western fishery, then produced, shewing the inevitable ruin and destruction both to them and their families, that would immediately ensue, if prevented from delivering their herrings at Lowestoft, as from time immemorial they have been accustomed to do, which certificates have been since confirmed by a petition from Captain Tattersell, to his sacred majesty; and that your honour would be graciously pleased to report your sense of this difference concerning the admeasurement as soon as possible; for that the Yarmouth men will continue to claim the same privileges, or greater, than they did in the year 1595; and exercise the same ruin to our poor town, as in the last year (1660), with their armed vessel called a man-of-war. Neither do the Yarmouth men desire that the controversy should be brought before the parliament, but to weary us out with delays and expense, well knowing how unable we are to wage law with them, and that unless they persist in opposing us, it will end in an admeasurement. We therefore humbly pray your honour, that you will be pleased to consider the equity of our case; the great expense, travail and loss of time we have been at; and with due regard to our poor condition, speedily to report the state of the whole matter to his majesty in council, that so we may be no longer delayed, but repair home to follow our lawful callings; and we shall, as in duty bound, for ever pray, and remain, your honours most humble and grateful servants,
JAMES WILD,
SAMUEL PACY.
The attorney-general, in pursuance of the order of council, paid due attention to the allegations of both parties; and after hearing what each of them had to advance in support of their several pretensions, together with the opinion of their learned council, delivered a report to his majesty; wherein, after reciting the many charters which had been granted to the town of Yarmouth, and afterwards repealed; and the various ordinances and inquisitions issued and taken by the King’s commission in preceding reigns, and revoked by the same authority; declared that he had considered the statute 31 Edward III, the different opinions of the several judges thereupon, and the orders of her late majesty queen Elizabeth and her privy council, in consequence thereof, which were, that seven miles should be measured from the Key of Yarmouth, and also from the utmost bounds of their haven, and that a certificate should be presented, declaring how far each of the said admeasurements extended; and that during the interval, they should forbear to erect any marks or bounds, pointing out the termination of the said admeasurements, until further orders were issued; but that it did not appear to him that the said seven miles were actually measured by any order for that purpose. It is evident that the attorney-general had not perfectly informed himself of all the circumstances of this dispute, or else they were misrepresented to him; for in 1596 an order in Council was given for seven miles to be measured from the key of Yarmouth towards Lowestoft, and at the end thereof to set up some apparent mark; and in that remarkable commission, which had all the appearance of being fraudently obtained, is contained directions for the two admeasurements, and the suspension of the order for erecting a mark pointing out the extent of the liberties of Yarmouth. Nevertheless the inhabitants of Lowestoft did affirm, and it was certified by great numbers of the Western fishermen, that the said Western fishery had ever since the recited order (as they did before), sold and delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft till this last summer, without any disturbance or molestation from the town of Yarmouth.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FIRST REPORT.
May it please your most excellent Majesty.
In obedience to your Majesty’s order in council, of the 25th January last, I have heard the inhabitants of the town of Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, and also the inhabitants of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, and their learned counsel on both sides; and do find, that the contention between the said towns concerning the herring fishery, hath depended for a very long time. And that divers statutes have been made in this case by parliaments, and again afterwards repealed. And also divers ordinances and inquisitions have anciently been made and taken, by the king’s commission directed to men of great quality, and afterwards altered and revoked again by the like authority. But there was one statute made in the 31st Edward III, whereby amongst other things it is provided, that none shall sell herrings in any place 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 I have likewise seen the opinions of several learned judges, some of them conceiving, that the said statute, 31 Edward III is repealed; and others, that the said statute, and also one other Act made in the tenth year of Richard II, for reviving divers former repealed charters, made to Yarmouth, stand still in force bylaw, and are not repealed. And those judges who were of opinion that the same were not repealed, did think it good and convenient to have the seven miles measured, and to begin at the crane key in Yarmouth, where the said fair of herrings is kept (to which place the fishers who sell their fish at Yarmouth must first come, and their cable draw to land, before they deliver their herrings), and so go towards Lowestoft, and where the seven miles do end, to set up some apparent mark to make it known; and did certify the same accordingly to the lords of Queen Elizabeth’s privy council. But the inhabitants of Yarmouth being discontented with the first certificate of the said judges, did procure a rehearing of their cause before them, who having accordingly heard them and their learned counsel, did certify that they did find no cause to alter their former certificate; yet the admeasurement was suspended by reason of the Yarmouth men alledging, that the admeasurement of the seven miles from the key of Yarmouth would be prejudicial to their charters and liberties; and that by the said statute, 31 Edward III, the seven miles ought to be accounted from the utmost bounds of the haven, which they affirmed to have been extended, in the memory of man, a mile beyond where it was then; so that it was directed by the lords of her said late majesty’s most honourable privy council, that there should be seven miles measured from the key at Yarmouth and from the utmost bounds of their haven, where the five ports begin their jurisdiction, and that it should be certified unto them how far each admeasurement did extend; and that in the mean time they should forbear to set up any marks or bounds, until such further orders should be issued therein as might be just and reasonable, and to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. But there is nothing appears to me, that the said seven miles were measured as the said last-recited order did direct. Yet, notwithstanding, the inhabitants of Lowestoft do affirm, and it is certified by great numbers of fishermen, that the western fishery has been ever since the said recited order (as they did before) sold and delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft, till this last summer without the disturbance of the Yarmouth men.
All which I humbly submit to your Majesty’s great wisdom.