Lowestoft in olden times

by Francis Davy Longe

At this time the Yarmouth bailiffs were possessed of an admiralty jurisdiction, with special powers for taking cognizance of offences committed in “Kirkley Road” or as it was now called “Lestoff Road” (as spelt in the town ledger of the period). At this time moreover (about 1595) the mouth of the harbour was in a better condition than it ever had been, and the Yarmouth fish merchants had no longer any need to transgress the Statute of Herrings themselves by unloading their fish outside the harbour. It was under these circumstances that the Bailiffs determined to attempt a revival of the almost obsolete provisions of their ancient charter which prohibited the buying of Herrings in Kirkley Road.

It appears that for some years previously fish merchants from other towns in the Eastern counties had been in the habit of visiting these roads in the autumn season and filling their “Ketches” with herrings from the foreign fishing boats. It was against these men that the Yarmouth bailiffs now directed their attacks.

We hear of their proceedings from “The Complaint of the Ketchmen against Yarmouth” submitted to the Privy Council in 1595, signed by the bailiffs and inhabitants of Ipswich, Southwold, Manningtree, Dunwich, Colchester, and Aldborough.

It appears that the Yarmouth Bailiffs had not only sent their officers into the roads off Lowestoft to require the foreign fishermen to carry their fish into Yarmouth, but that they had taken active measures against the buyers, and had carried off “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 goods again.”

Lowestoft merchants were also warned to discontinue the illegal practice of buying fish in Kirkley Road. They at once joined in the petition of the Ketchman to the Privy Council, and a suit against Yarmouth was commenced in the Court of the Star chamber. The managers of the Lowestoft case retained the services of Mr. Counsellor Bacon, then a rising barrister, afterwards the great Lord Bacon. In conjunction with two senior counsel he gave the following very decided opinion in favour of Lowestoft;—

“That by the statutes and charters aforesaid any man may sell or buy herrings in the road called Kirkley Road, 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 this time of the Fair.”

Chas. Drew; Ja. Bargrave; Fr. Bacon.

The case was referred by the Star Chamber to the judges for their opinion on the questions of law involved. They at once cut the knot by deciding that the old statutes and charters were still in force, but that the “7 leuks” mentioned in them, could only mean 7 miles; the measure recently established by statute, and the only legal measure which the word “leuca” could then mean. Such a decision would at once settle the appeal in favour of Lowestoft. The Star Chamber however refused to accept this interpretation, and sent the case back to the Judges. The Judges adhered to their construction of the word “leuca,” but advised that question should be referred to Parliament for settlement. The decision of the Judges was convenient, but in holding that the word “leuca” in the old charters meant a “mile” as determined by the recent statute, they clearly ignored the whole purport and intention of the enactment against which Lowestoft had fought in the Parliaments of Edward and Richard. A Bill appears to have been prepared to be introduced into the following Session (1597) for giving Parliamentary sanction to this construction, and ordering that the distance of 7 miles should be measured along the shore from Yarmouth towards Lowestoft, and that a mark should be set up at the end of that distance. This Bill, although set out by Gillingwater, does not appear to have been passed. The result however, of these proceedings was that in pursuance of the advice of the judges, the distance was measured, and a pole set up at the end of the 7 miles on Gunton Denes. Although recognised by Lowestoft men as marking the boundary beyond which they might not land herrings, it was ignored altogether by Yarmouth; as it had not been placed in pursuance of any legal order. The Yarmouth bailiffs however abstained from any further assertion of their claims at this time, and the Lowestoft merchants and the Suffolk Ketchmen continued to carry on their dealings with the fishing boats in the Roads as before.

Why the Act of Parliament, advised by the judges, was not introduced, or, if introduced, was not passed, we are not told. Probably the influence of Yarmouth in the House of Commons was very different at this time from what it was when the “Commons” supported Lowestoft against the Crown in the times of Edward and Richard.

The death of Elizabeth, and the succession of James I., gave Yarmouth an opportunity to procure a new charter from the Crown, which contained provisions for removing the doubts that had been raised as to the whereabouts and extent of Kirkley Road.

It contained a new grant of Kirkley Road, and actually revived the obsolete “leuca,” as a measure of 2 miles, so as to make the new grant include “Lestoff” Road, and the whole stretch of Roads, “from Winterton Ness to Easton Ness, containing in length 14 leuks or thereabouts, and in breadth into the sea 7 leuks from every part of the shore within those places.”