[6] The strength of the contest during the whole of this dispute may be summed up in these words: “By this controversy between the burgh of Great Yarmouth and the men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, in Lothingland it appears that prescription, seeing they were no burghs, prevailed not to assert and make good a liberty of unlading goods and exposing them to sale in the towns.” By the same it is also evident that liberties belonging to free burghs are only to be had and obtained by the king’s charter; and that where they were used without it, they were esteemed and judged usurpations, especially if practised and continued to the prejudice and damage of a free burgh. It was observed before, that the fee of this hundred was originally in the crown, and it appears to have continued so, without any interruption, till the time of king Henry 3rd, who, in the twenty-second year of his reign, anno 1238, granted it to John de Baliol and Devergill, his wife, one of the sisters (Ives says nieces) and heiress of John Scot, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon, in exchange for their part of the county of Chester. The reasons which induced king Henry to make this exchange were strictly political: the ancient Earls of Chester being Earls Palatine, bore great sway in any combination of the barons, and this the king, as well as his father, had often experienced. Randulf, the sixth Earl of Chester, uncle and immediate predecessor of John, was not only a man of great power, but of considerable abilities and much integrity; he warmly espoused the cause of king John against the barons, and proved himself a faithful champion to his son, even to the preservation of his person, and the raising him to his father’s throne; his attachment to loyalty seemed to proceed from conviction; and, notwithstanding his being so great an advocate for John and Henry, yet, with all the dignity and hardiness of one of the iron barons of that period, he openly rebuked the former in parliament for his criminality respecting the wives and daughters of the nobility, and joined with the Earl of Cornwall to force the latter to seal the new charter of the forest liberties instead of that which he had cancelled at Oxford. Earl John, the last of this family, his successor, adopted his uncle’s system, and took part with king Henry upon the great difference between him and Richard, Earl Marshall, in 1233, and, upon the solemity of Henry’s marriage with Eleanor, daughter of Raymund, Earl of Provence, we find him bearing the sword, called Curtana before the king, in token, says Matthew Paris, that, being an Earl Palatine, he had power to restrain the king, if he should be exorbitant. It is no wonder, therefore, that, upon his death, Henry should be desirous of annexing the county of Chester to his crown, especially as he left no issue, and only female relations; and as this earldom was, in some respects, entitled to royal privileges, and a local monarchy, he assumed it into his own hands, “lest so fair a dominion should be divided among women;” and in the 31st year of his reign this Earldom annexed to the crown for ever, and remained so till the 21st of Richard 2nd, when by Act of Parliament, it was united to the principality of Wales.
[7a] Beatrice, the second daughter of king Henry and his Queen Eleanor, married John, the first Duke of Britainy, son of John, the late Earl of the same family, by whom he had issue, Arthur, duke of Britainy, and John Earl of Richmond, the said nephew. This great and accomplished nobleman was no less famous for his conduct and courage, than for his illustrious descent from one of the ancient Norman families, strengthened in its interests and possessions by several very near alliances to the crown; he also united to those qualifications, great generosity and real goodness.
[7b] It is evident from Swinden, that the affair was agitated in the 8th and 9th of Edward 2nd, although Ives asserts, that the Earl of Richmond took no notice of it till the 2nd of Edward 3rd. Possibly the earl, from residing at so great a distance, might not personally appear in the prosecution till the time of Edward 3rd; when the suit grew more serious and importunate.
[8] The Commissioners appointed by the king to meet at Great Yarmouth, in order to make enquiry concerning this dispute, and to terminate the differences, were the Bishop of Winchester, Lord Chancellor of England, Lord John Stoneherd, and John de Cambridge, his justices; Robert de Ufford, Oliver de Ingham, and Ralph Nevel, steward of the king’s household. In the roll of this year is the following entry:—Paid to the lord chancellor and others, the king’s justices, the time they were at Great Yarmouth, by order of John Pere Brown, £1 2s. 6d., and at the same time paid for bread sent to them 13s. 4d.
[9a] In August 1578, the Queen was expected at Yarmouth, by way of Suffolk, and great preparations were made for her reception and entertainment; particularly, a silver cup of £16 value, made in the form of a ship, was intended as a present to Her Majesty; but she proceeded no further than Norwich, and from thence the Lords of her retinue came to Yarmouth. In the same year, an annuity of 20s. a year, was granted, by the city of Norwich, to John Benne, of Lowestoft, who was lamed with firing off the cannon at Norwich, when the Queen visited that city.
[9b] Leuks, leuga, or luca. There are various conjectures concerning the meaning of this word; some making it three, others two, and many only one mile; but with respect to the liberties belonging to the herring fair, the leuk was determined as only one mile; as may be seen in section 4th., when an actual admeasurement of the said distance was ordered to be made,
[10] It appears indisputably evident, from divers charters granted to the town of Great Yarmouth, that the rights and privileges belonging to their herring fair extended to the distance of seven leuks or miles. The principal point in dispute between that town and the town of Lowestoft, was, from what place the said distance was to be measured, whether the quay or the mouth of the haven: when it was proved, and legally determined, about the year 1664, that the said admeasurement should commence at the former place. And, therefore, the town of Lowestoft, and the other towns, pretending to have a right to buy and sell herrings, etc., within the limits of the said seven miles from Great Yarmouth was illegal, and a manifest infringement on the liberties of the town.
[11] A beam to weigh with.
[12a] About this time a Warren, earl of Surrey, was warden or bailiff of Lothingland, who, it is conjectured, was William de Warren, the second earl of Surrey.
[12b] It also appears that Lowestoft, and also the island, in the reign of King Henry IV. and Henry V. was part of the estate of Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, and passed to his successors.