Chapter V: Section IV (1)

THE CONTEST BETWEEN YARMOUTH AND LOWESTOFT RESPECTING KIRKLEY ROAD AND THE HERRING FISHERY.

IN order to discover the origin of those violent disputes and commotions which subsisted so long between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, respecting Kirkley road and the herring fishery, and to represent them in the clearest and most impartial manner, it may be necessary to advert to a preceding section, and to recapitulate from thence such circumstances as may tend to the better understanding the various transactions of the section we are now engaged in.

It was there observed, that in early ages, even before Yarmouth was founded, it is probable, that Lowestoft was the general rendezvous of both the northern and western fishers employed in the herring fishery; because, until the sand whereon Yarmouth was afterwards built appeared above the surface of the water and became firm land the fishermen that resorted to these coasts for herrings must necessarily have a place more southerly to assemble at. That as soon as the sand called Cerdick sand had made its appearance, (the Saxons came first; afterwards the portsmen), they found its situation so extremely convenient for drying of nets, and the other necessary occupations of a seafaring life, that they began soon after to erect temporary booths or tents there, as their several circumstances would admit as well for the accommodation of their persons as the security of their property. Soon after they had officers, called bailiffs, deputed by the barons of the cinque ports, to superintend the fishery for the space of forty days; afterwards they began to erect houses, and at last was founded the burgh called Great Yarmouth.

The burgesses of Yarmouth had a charter of liberties granted them by King John; and the barons of the cinque ports had also certain liberties at Yarmouth granted them by the same king or rather confirmed what they held before by prescriptive right only: but these several liberties interfering with each other gave rise to the most violent disputes and depredations upon each others’ property, which continued, with some intermissions, until the reign of queen Elizabeth, when a proposal for conciliating these differences was offered, by making Yarmouth a member of the cinque ports, but it failed of success: but in the year 1576 all matters in dispute being adjusted to their mutual satisfaction it was at the same time finally agreed, “That as every fishing vessel frequenting this fair in antient times paid four pence, as a toll or custom, to the bailiffs of the cinque ports; and that afterwards the said bailiffs accepted from the bailiffs, of Great Yarmouth, in lieu thereof, the annual sum of six pounds: Yet now, for the sake of restoring peace and tranquility, it was further agreed by the said bailiffs of the cinque ports to receive only three pounds ten shillings from the bailiffs of Yarmouth, in full satisfaction for the above-mentioned toll.” Thus their disputes being amicably adjusted, the contending parties preserved afterwards a more friendly intercourse with each other, which continued for some years, when the Yarmouth men refusing to pay the bailiffs of the cinque ports the above-stipulated sum of three pounds ten shillings any longer, the said bailiffs preferring peace to contention, and wishing to avoid any farther disputes, discontinued coming to the fair at Yarmouth in a public capacity any longer. {60}

The town of Yarmouth having now engrossed the whole of the herring fishery usually carried on near their own town to themselves, it became, in consequence thereof, the general rendezvous of all the vessels employed in buying and selling those fish, of whom they demanded a toll or custom; and having also obtained a charter, 46 Edward III for uniting Kirkley road to the port of Yarmouth, and for extending their liberties seven miles from the said port, were legally authorised to levy their customs upon all such herrings as were bought and sold in the above-mentioned road and within the said seven miles.

But the Yarmouth men, so far from being satisfied with the additional emoluments arising from these acquisitions, envolved themselves in fresh disputes with the men of Lowestoft, in the reign of Henry IV. respecting their customs, which were revived again in the reign of queen Elizabeth, (exclusive of the above-mentioned dispute with the portsmen in 1576), and again about the year 1659, when they attempted to extend their liberties beyond their legal bounds, and endeavoured to hinder the Lowestoft men from purchasing any herrings either at or near their own town, unless they paid the usual customs to Yarmouth; and grounded their claim on a pretence, that the grant of the 46th of Edward III. which extended their liberties seven leuks or miles from Yarmouth, was not to be measured from the key of Yarmouth, but from the mouth of the haven; and consequently would thereby wholly exclude the town of Lowestoft from buying herrings even in the roads belonging to their own town, unless they first submitted to pay such customs as should be claimed by the burgesses of Yarmouth. They also endeavoured farther to show, that that part of the sea called Kirkley road was opposite the parish of Kirkley, a town situated about a mile to the south of Lowestoft, notwithstanding the real name of that part of the sea is Pakefield bay; and that the seven leuks prescribed in their charter as the boundary of their liberties, were not miles but leagues.

These unreasonable and ill-grounded claims on the part of Yarmouth were productive of a most violent rupture between the two towns; they even proceeded so far (in order to defend what each of them thought to be their just and legal privileges) as to fit out armed vessels, in consequence of which many sharp engagements ensued, and much blood was shed on both sides. At last the respective parties, being weary of contention, agreed to lay the affair before the privy council, from whence it was referred to the judges, and lastly to a hearing before the house of lords where it was finally determined in favour of the town of Lowestoft, as will be more fully shewn in the subsequent part of this section.

The above circumstances being premised, I shall now proceed to make some inquiries concerning the several charters granted to Yarmouth respecting the herring fishery, how far the liberties contained in those charters extended; and particularly, whether the charter which annexed Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven tended to exclude the town of Lowestoft from the privilege, which it had enjoyed from time immemorial, of buying and selling herrings in the roads belonging to their own town.

I have observed before, that the great charter of liberties granted to the town of Yarmouth, was that granted by King John, in the 9th year of his reign. This king being distressed in fitting out a fleet of ships for the recovery of his Norman dominions, lately lost, indulged them with a charter, on condition, “that they should provide for him fifty-seven ships for forty days, at their own charge, as often as the wars he was engaged in should give him occasion to demand them.” {61a} By this charter Yarmouth was created a free burgh, and the burgesses thereof were invested with many immunities and privileges, to be held in fee-farm, paying to him and his heirs, an annual rent of £55 for ever; for payment thereof they were allowed only the customs arising out of the port; not being authorised to receive any custom of goods bought or sold in the market upon land at the time of the year. {61b}

In the reign of Henry III, when that prince exchanged the fee-farm of Yarmouth and Lothingland with John de Baliol, for other lands in Cheshire, which was very detrimental to the town of Yarmouth, on account that ships with victuals might unlade on Lothingland side, and particularly so, as fish was one of the principal articles from whence their greatest profits arose; and, therefore, they petitioned the King in the fortieth year of his reign, to grant them a new charter, whereby all merchandise and wares, as well fish as other commodities, should be sold at Yarmouth by the hands of the importers of them into the haven of Yarmouth, whether found in the ships or without, etc.; which charter was accordingly granted. But the Baliols (father and son) still continued to take tolls and customs belonging to the port of Yarmouth, notwithstanding its charters to the contrary, to the great prejudice of the burgesses, who were either unable or unwilling to contest the matter with so powerful an enemy as the King of Scots. But upon the said King renouncing his homage to Edward I, all his English estates became forfeited and, consequently, the said fee-farm of Yarmouth and Lothingland, reverted again to the British monarch. The town Yarmouth embraced this favourable opportunity of making an application to Edward I. for a confirmation of the privileges granted to them by the charter of Henry III, in which they were so fortunate as to succeed. Yet, notwithstanding this charter of Edward I, it appears, by sundry records, that their adversaries still persisted in their claims, and continued to take customs, contrary to the liberties of the burgesses. The above privileges were afterwards confirmed by Edward II, and also again by the 1st of Edward III; and in the 6th of Edward III. they were again confirmed by a special charter, after a long and tedious suit with the Earl of Richmond (the proprietor of the fee-farm of Lothingland, given to him by Edward I) about levying the customs, etc., in the haven of Yarmouth.

During these litigious disputes respecting the privileges of Yarmouth and the customs to be levied on vessels frequenting that port, the haven belonging to that town became so obstructed by sand-banks, formed at its entrance by the easterly winds, that the mouth of it extended to the south of Corton before it discharged itself into the ocean; and so many shelves were formed therein, especially between the 10th and 20th of Edward III., as rendered the navigation so very dangerous, that no ships of any considerable burthen could enter it with safety; and therefore the inhabitants of Yarmouth, in the 20th year of the reign of Edward III were under the necessity of petitioning that King, viz., for liberty to cut a new mouth to the haven nearer to Yarmouth, opposite to Corton, which petition was immediately granted. This haven at a considerable expense, continued the space of twenty-six years, viz., till the 46th of Edward III, when it again began to be obstructed with sand banks that no ships could enter therein, but were obliged to unlade their goods and merchandise in an adjoining place called Kirkley road.

It was a matter of much controversy, during this contest, to ascertain with certainty where the place called Kirkley road was situated. The Yarmouth men insisting that it was opposite the village of Kirkley, about a mile to the south of Lowestoft; and the Lowestoft men as strenuously asserting, that the real name of that part of the sea near Kirkley was Pakefield bay; that in consequence of the town of Kirkley having been formerly a town of considerable trade in the herring fishery, it gave to all the sea thereabouts, even as far as Yarmouth, the general name of Kirkley seas; part of which, namely, that which was situated a little to the south of where the haven’s mouth then was, was called Kirkley road, and was then annexed to Yarmouth haven.

In the old manuscript view of Lowestoft referred to in a former section (late in the possession of Thomas Martin, of Palgrave, in Suffolk) Kirkley road is placed between Lowestoft and Corton; and in the old map of the coast, given in Garianonum, the situation of Kirkley road is the same.

It was also alleged by the Yarmouth men, that the seven miles, the boundary of their liberties, granted by this new charter, was to be measured, not from the key, but from the haven’s mouth, which would exclude the town of Lowestoft from buying herrings, unless they paid the customs to Yarmouth; the Lowestoft men insisting, that the seven miles should be measured from the key at Yarmouth, and not from the haven’s mouth.

These declarations on the part of Lowestoft will receive further confirmation from the following extract from the town book, taken from Cawden:

About the year of our Lord 1100, about 500 years past, it pleased God
to lay the first foundation of the east town of Yarmouth into firm
land, even out of the main sea. Which place was then called and
known by the name of Sardike sand, and Sardike shore; and in a short
time it proved to be a fit and commodious place for a town to be
built, meet for seafaring men to inhabit in. And by the permission
of many noble kings in this land, his majesties progenitors, many did
resort thither, and began to build the same, and to enclose it with a
stone wall on the east side of the town (the haven being on the west
side) inasmuch that within a short time the same grew populous.

And long before Yarmouth town was incorporated, the barons of the
five ports did yearly hold a free fair in the three towns of Yarmouth
(that is to say) Easton, Weston, and Southton, beginning the said
fair on the feast of St. Michael and so continued forty days
together.

And by the authority of the King, they did then use to make their
repair thither on purpose for the governing of the said fair. And in
those days was yearly sent from the brotherhood of the five ports,
and the antient towns, nine or ten bailiffs who governed the fair.
And it is to be noted, that long before any liberties were granted to
Yarmouth, the towns of Lowestoft and Kirkley in the county of
Suffolk, were built, and populously inhabited; and the then town of
Kirkley being the greatest town of account, and the most antient upon
the coast, and being a haven town, (the place now called Kirkley
haven was the antient haven), before that Yarmouth was Yarmouth, and
thereupon the whole fishing seas upon the confines of Suffolk and
Norfolk, take the name of Kirkley seas.

And to this day the seas upon those coasts are called or known by the
French fishermen coming there to fish, by the name of Kirkley seas.
And long since, before Yarmouth was incorporated there was such
trading and merchandising of herrings at Lowestoft, and the same was
by the Yarmouth men so much envied that civil wars subsisted for a
long time between them, with much bloodshed, until it pleased God to
take the matter into his own hands, who ended the strife with such a
great mortality of people, that there died of the plague in Yarmouth
7,000 persons, and then the wars ceased.

The dreadful pestilence here alluded to, first began in the northern parts of Asia in 1346; from whence it passed into Greece, from thence into Italy and France, and in the beginning of August 1348, broke out in Dorsetshire: many who were well in the morning died before noon. About the feast of All Saints it reached London, making dreadful destruction; and about Christmas, Yarmouth and the neighbouring parts felt its direful effects. It immediately spread itself over the nation, and raged so violently in 1348 and 1349, that there scarcely remained the tenth part of the people alive in most places.

His Majesty, Edward III. after being duly informed of the circumstance relative to the affair of the Kirkley road, was pleased, after an application of six years continuance, and after the greatest opposition being made thereto from Lowestoft and other neighbouring towns, who reaped great advantages from vessels discharging their goods in Kirkley road, and were hitherto exempted from paying the customs to Yarmouth, to unite the said road of Kirkley into the town and port of Yarmouth (Kirkley road united to Yarmouth haven, 46 Edward III), upon paying him and his successors one hundred shillings yearly; and to grant use to the burgesses full power to receive the like duties there as at Yarmouth for ever. {63}

It may be necessary here to inform the reader, that there are two remarkable circumstances in this charter; the one is, that Kirkley is there represented as a certain place in the high seas near the entrance of the haven of the town; the other that the seven leuks to which the liberties were then extended, are described as issuing from the town of Yarmouth, and not from the haven’s mouth. It is proper to mention these particulars because towards the end of this section it will appear that there was much altercation between Yarmouth and Lowestoft respecting the true situation of Kirkley road; and also, whether the seven leuks or miles were to be measured from the key, or from the haven’s mouth.

The form observed by government, previous to their granting this charter, was, first to issue a writ of _ad quod dampnum_, directed to the escheator of Norfolk and Suffolk; then followed a mandate to the sheriff; afterwards inquisitions were taken to examine the premises; and lastly the charter itself was granted. Subjoin are the writ, the mandate, the inquisitions, and the charter.

THE WRIT OF AD QUOD DAMPNUM.

Edward, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, to his beloved and faithful John de Rockewode, his escheator
in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, Reginald de Eccles, and
Edmund Gurnay, greeting. Know ye, that we have assigned you, and two
of you, to enquire by the oath of good and lawful men of the counties
aforesaid, as well within the liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter may be better known, if it be to the damage or
prejudice of us or others if we grant to our beloved the burgesses
and good men of the town of Great Yarmouth, a certain place in the
sea, near the entrance of the haven of the same town, called Kirkley
road; so that after such our grant, that place to the said haven they
may annex and unite, and if so annexed and united, to hold and to
have of us and our heirs, as parcel of the same haven, together with
the haven aforesaid, to them and their successors, burgesses of the
same town, for relief of the town aforesaid, and for an aid of the
farm which to us and our heirs, they are holden, for the same town
and haven annually to pay, by the same services by which the town and
haven aforesaid were before holden of us; and that all ships and
boats to the same place of Kirkley road coming or to come, and from
thence going or to go, may there as freely lade or unlade, and the
customs and all other profits thereof receive and have, as before in
the said port they have done, had and received, or have been used or
ought to do, have and receive, without hindrance or impediment of us
or our heirs, or others whomsoever for ever. And also if it be to
the loss or prejudice of us or others, then to what loss, or what
prejudice of others, and of whom, and in what manner, how and of whom
the aforesaid place called Kirkley road is holden, and by what
service, and in what manner, and how; and how much it is worth by the
year in all issues and profits, according to the real value of the
same; and how far distant from the entrance of the haven aforesaid;
and who occupies or occupy that place, and receives and receive, the
issues and profits thereof; by what right, title, how, and in what
manner. And therefore we command you, that at certain days and
places which you or two of you shall appoint for this business, you
may make diligent enquiry, upon all and singular the premises in what
manner soever; and it distinctly and openly make to us, into our
chancery, under the seals of you, or two of you distinctly, and
openly send without delay, and this writ.

For we have commanded our sheriff of the same counties, that at
certain days and places which you shall make known to him, he cause
to come before you, so many, and so good and lawful men of his
bailiwick, as well within the liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter in the premises may be better known and examined into.

THE MANDATE TO THE SHERIFF.

Edward, by the grace of God, King of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, to the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, greeting,—Whereas we
have assigned our beloved and faithful John de Rokewode, our
escheator in the counties aforesaid, Reginald de Eccles, and Edmund
de Gurnay, and two of them to enquire by the oath of good and lawful
men of the counties aforesaid, as well within the liberties as
without, by whom the truth of the matter shall be better known, if it
be to the loss or prejudice of us or others, if we grant to our
beloved the burgesses and good men of our town of Great Yarmouth,
that they, a certain place in the sea, near the entrance to the haven
of the town aforesaid, may annex and unite the same to the haven,
and, it so annexed and united, as parcel of the same haven, hold and
have to them and their successors, of us and our heirs for ever. And
also to do and accomplish some other things contained in our
commission to them thereof made, as in the same our commission it is
more fully contained. We command you, that at certain days and
places which the same John, Reginald, and Edmund, or two of them,
shall make known to you, you cause to come before them, or two of
them, so many, and such good and lawful men of the counties
aforesaid, as well within the liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter shall be better known, and inquired into, and have this
writ. Witness myself at Westminster, the 14th day of February, in
the 44th year of our reign of England, and of France the 31st.

THE FIRST INQUISITION.

An inquisition taken at Waybrede, in the county of Suffolk, on
Thursday next after the feast of St. James the Apostle, in the 46th
year of the reign of King Edward the Third, after the conquest before
Reginald de Eccles, and Edmund Gurnay, justices of the lord the king,
assigned by commission of the lord the king, to inquire if it be to
the damage or prejudice of the lord the king or others, that the lord
the king should grant to the burgesses and good men of the town of
Great Yarmouth, a certain place in the seas near the entrance of the
haven of the same town, called Kirkley road; by the oath of Theobald
Osborn, John Pynn, Thomas Crane, Bennett de Reading, Thomas Attie
Wood, William Child, William Nicholas, John de Ireland, Robert
Barker, William Danes, Richard Sallern, and Richard Allred, who say
upon their oath that it is not to the damage nor prejudice of the
lord the king nor others: that the lord the king should grant to the
aforesaid burgesses and good men of the town aforesaid, the aforesaid
place in the sea near the entrance of the haven of that town, called
Kirkley road, and that place to the said town and haven to be annexed
and united, and so annexed and united, to the haven aforesaid, to
have and to hold to them and their successors, burgesses of the same
town for ever; for the relief and support of the aforesaid town, and
aid of the farm of the same town which they have paid, and still do
pay, to the lords the king and his heirs annually. They say also,
that the said place is main sea, and nothing distant from the
entrance of the haven aforesaid, and so has been, from time
immemorial. And they say, that the said place is not holden of any
man, but has been the property of the lord the king, as main sea; nor
is there any profit thence to the lord the king or others annually
rendered.

And further they say, that it is not to the damage nor prejudice of
the lord the king, nor others, that all ships and boats to the same
place coming, or to come, or from thence, going, or to go, may there
as freely in every case, lade and unlade; and the customs and other
profits of the aforesaid burgh thence may receive and have, as
formerly in the said haven they have received and had; and to make
executions touching their liberties as freely as in the said haven
they have done, and used to do. And they say, that it is worth
nothing a year, since nobody has received, nor ever occupied any
customs or profits thereto, because it is in the high sea.

Being asked why it is not to the damage of the lord the king or
others, if the lord the king grant the place aforesaid in the manner
aforesaid? they answer, that the entrance of the haven aforesaid is
of late so dry that no ship laden there near the haven aforesaid can
enter, unless first in the place aforesaid, called Kirkley road, it
be unladed; nor will it there pay any customs to the lord the king or
others. And they say, that the said town of Great Yarmouth cannot be
supported, nor pay the farm to the lord the king, unless by the aid
of a grant of the lord the king, to receive customs of the ships and
boats in the said place, coming, entering, and going out, in the
manner wherein they have received them in the haven aforesaid. In
witness whereof the aforesaid jurors to these presents have put their
seals.

THE SECOND INQUISITION.

An inquisition taken at Attlebridge, in the county of Norfolk, on
Monday next after the feast of St. Peter in chains, in the 46th year
of the reign of king Edward the Third, after the conquest, before
Reginald de Eccles and Edmund Gurnay, justices by commission of the
lord the king, assigned to inquire, whether it be to the damage or
prejudice of the lord the king or others, that the lord the king
should grant the burgesses and good men of the town of Great
Yarmouth, a certain place in the sea, near the entrance of the havan
of the same town, called Kirkley road, by the oaths of Richard de
Martham, John de Westly, George Seafowl, John de Berking, Ralph
Noreman, William Arnold, Nicholas Bannok, John Baxter, James Atte
Church, Richard de Kent, John Dawys, and Edmund Cooke; who say, ect.

THE CHARTER FOR UNITING KIRKLEY ROAD TO THE
HAVEN OF YARMOUTH.

Edward, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, and Duke of Aqitain, etc.—Know ye, that we, willing for the
aid and relief of the town of Great Yarmouth, to shew more abundant
grace to the burgesses and good men of the same town, have given and
granted for us and our heirs to the same burgesses and good men, for
an aid and relief of the same town, and for 100s. which they and
their successors, at the terms of St. Michael and Easter, by equal
portions (for an increment and augmentation of the farm of £55 which
the same burgesses and good men are holden annually to pay us and our
heirs, into the same exchequer, for a certain place in the high sea,
near the entrance of the haven of the town aforesaid), should pay
every year to us and our heirs, into the same exchequer, for a
certain place in the high sea near the entrance of the haven of the
town aforesaid called Kirkley road; and have annexed and united that
place to the said town and haven; to have and to hold unto the same
burgesses and good men and their sucessors, of us and our heirs, that
place, annexed to the said town and haven for ever. Willing and
granting, for us and our heirs, to the same burgesses and good men,
that they and their successors for ever may have in the said place of
Kirkley road, all and every the liberties and quittances by the
charters of our progenitors and confirmation of us to them formerly
granted, as they the same liberties and quittances in the said town,
by virtue of the charters and confirmation aforesaid, ought to have;
and may have and receive of all ships and boats which shall happen to
come to the said place of Kirkley road, and in part or wholly unlade,
the same customs which they, according to the liberties aforesaid,
should have, if they at the said town should arrive, and there in
part or wholly unlade. We have also granted, for us and our heirs,
to the said burgesses and good men, and for ever confirmed to the
same and their successors, that no ship, nor any boat, should be
laden or unladen at any town or place upon the sea coast, within
seven leuks distant from the said town of Great Yarmouth, by any
person whomsoever, of herrings or any other merchandises, unless the
ship, boat, or herrings, and also the merchandises, were that
person’s proper goods only and not any other’s, except at the said
town of Great Yarmouth, or in the haven of the same, or at the place
of Kirkley road above said. And also, that in the time of the
fishing and fair of herrings, no fair should be holden, nor any
selling or buying, on account of merchandising be made in any place
within the space of seven leuks about the town aforesaid, but only at
the same town of Great Yarmouth, or in the haven of the same town, of
herrings or other merchandise whatsoever. And we strictly prohibit,
for us and our heirs, that no one within the space aforesaid of seven
leuks, presume to lade or unlade any other ship or boat than his
proper own, and of his own proper herrings, and other merchandises,
anywhere, but only at the same town of Great Yarmouth, or in the
haven of the same, or at the place of Kirkley road, or in the time
aforesaid, to hold any fair, or to sell or buy any herrings or other
wares, on account of merchandising, but only at the said town of
Great Yarmouth, or in the haven of the same upon forfeiture of the
ships and boats so to be laded or unladed, or from that time to be
put to sale in such fairs or elsewhere, by way of merchandising,
contrary to the said prohibition, to be applied to the uses of us and
our heirs. Of which forfeitures aforesaid we will, and have granted,
for us and our heirs, that the bailiffs of the said, town of Great
Yarmouth, for the time being, may and shall enquire from time to
time, and take them into custody, and cause them to be kept for our
use, and answer to us and our heirs, thereupon into the exchequer
aforesaid, every year, at the term of St. Michael and Easter.

And all our letters whatsoever, to the town of Lowestoft or to the
men of the same, contrary to any of these premises, made by us, as to
such contrariety, we do revoke.

Witness myself, at Westminster the 22nd day of August, in the 46th
year of our reign of England.

By virtue of this charter, the Yarmouth men not only obtained the privilege of having Kirkley road united to the town and haven of Yarmouth, but also to receive the same customs there which had usually been collected before in the port of Yarmouth, and were also farther empowered to seize the ships, goods, etc., of such as bought or sold within seven leuks of it, under certain restrictions mentioned in the said charter.

The word leuk, leuga, or leuca, is liable to various definitions. Blomefield says, that he has often rendered the word league, but must inform his readers, that he does not mean by it our league of three miles, nor agree with Mr. Bailey in making the distance one mile only (though he says it is so used in Domesday), being almost certain, the leuga in Domesday signifies two miles, or thereabouts, for that answers to the generality of places that I have examined, as to the extent, which to me seems the best way of judging such a point; and upon looking into the various glossaries, I find that several of them concur in the same opinion; for which reason, wherever the word occurs I mean by it two miles and no more. Nevertheless, in the continuation of Blomefield, by Parkin, vol. V. it is said, “In the rolls of the King’s Bench it appears that the Bishop of Norwich had a fair at East Dereham, and that the town was sixteen leuca distant from that city; by which it is plain that a leuca was then (in 1277) accounted only one mile, Dereham being exactly sixteen measured miles from Norwich.” But whatever may be the opinion of Blomefield on this word, Swinden confines the admeasurement of a leuk to be one mile only; probably upon the authority of Domesday and other antient records. At the annual proclaiming of Yarmouth fair, the seven leuks are denominated to be seven miles. And in the statute of the 13th of Richard II. for the extent of the King’s Government, the word implies a single mile. Also, in the patent of the Knight marshal, for the extent of the government of the king’s household within the verge, the word leuca stands adjudged to be miles, eight furlongs to every mile, and to begin at the funnel of the chimney in the king’s lodging.

As the privilege which the town of Lowestoft and other places had long enjoyed, of being exempt from the customs demanded for the herrings bought and sold in Kirkley road (which would have been due had they merchandised in Yarmouth haven), was now lost, they consequently suffered much inconvenience from the granting of this charter, as they now became liable to all the customs due to Yarmouth for buying and selling herrings in Kirkley road, the same as though they were bought and sold in the haven. The granting of this charter, therefore, excited much animosity, and occasioned many disputes between Yarmouth and Lowestoft, as the latter was unwilling to relinquish their antient privilege; and accordingly, soon after, we find several men belonging to Lowestoft indicted at Yarmouth for not complying with the charter. The Lowestoft men, for trial of the premises, removed the suit, by writ of certiorari, into the Court of Chancery, where the affair was finally determined in favour of the burgesses of Yarmouth. The case was as follows:—

An indictment was brought by the burgesses of Yarmouth against John
Botile and others, of Lowestoft, for that they, on Friday next after
the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, in the 46th year of the reign
of Edward III. bought of John Trample, of Ostend, an alien, in the
said place called Kirkley road, which is within seven leuks of Great
Yarmouth, twenty-five lasts of new herrings value fifty pounds.

Against this charge the defendants returned only evasive answers, pretending that they knew not that the aforesaid place of Kirkley road was annexed to the port of Great Yarmouth, nor that there was a fair kept there, nor that the said place was in the county of Norfolk. However, these were pleas which had too little the appearance of truth to be admitted in their favour, and therefore they were found guilty of acting contrary to the above charter, and of infringing on the liberties of Yarmouth. Whereupon the said John Botile and others being convinced of their error, in refusing or evading the payment of the legal customs due to the town of Yarmouth, prayed the favour of the court, that the affair might be ended; and putting themselves upon the grace of the lord the king, they accordingly were fined and discharged.

In the year 1368, one John Lawes was hanged for exporting seven sacks of wool out of Kirkley road without paying the custom to Yarmouth.

As soon as this contentious business was decided, the inhabitants of Lowestoft, in the 50th year of Edward III., together with other commons, petitioned the parliament then holden to have the said grant or charter repealed; alleging that it opposed the common interest of the kingdom. For this and other reasons specified in the said petition, the Parliament repealed the charter for uniting Kirkley road to Yarmouth haven.

The grant of Kirkley road repealed the 50th of Edward III.

In the Parliament roll of the 50th year of Edward III. amongst the petitions of the commonalty of England, is the following:—

Also be it remembered, that, as well, at the request of the commons
of England, as at the suit of certain people of the town of
Lowestoft, in the county of Suffolk, made in this Parliament, the
charter of our lord the king, whereby he has lately granted to his
burgesses of the town of Great Yarmouth, that a place in the sea,
called Kirkley road, should be united and annexed to the port of the
said town of Great Yarmouth for ever, be totally repealed and
revoked, in respect to that new grant, as the thing was done contrary
to the common profit of the kingdom; always saving entirely to the
said burgesses, and to their successors, all their other privileges,
franchises, and customs, granted and confirmed to them by the same
our lord the king, or any other of his progenitors, with the clause
of licet to them, granted by the same our lord the king.

Out of the roll of the parliament holden at Westminister, on Monday next after the feast of St. George, in the 50th year of the reign of King Edward III. is the following:

Also the commons of the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge,
Lincoln, Northampton, Bedford, Bucks, Leicester, and other of the
commons, pray, That whereas a greater scarcity and want of herrings
have been in the said counties, and elsewhere throughout the whole
kingdom, since your charter was granted to the burgesses of Yarmouth,
that no herrings, nor other merchandise whatever, should be sold
within seven leuks of the said town of Yarmouth, during the fair of
the said town, in the time of the fishery, than ever was before; and
because no herrings might be made and sold elsewhere but at the said
town, to which no cart nor horse can approach without passage twice
by water, {67} to the great hindrance of carriage; and the greatest
part of herrings has been taken by strange fishers, in the time of
the fishery, who would not come to the said town; because they could
not sell their merchandises but at the will of the said burgesses,
and that at a certain price and quantity. That it would please your
highness to command that the said charter be repealed; and that
herrings may be bought, made, and sold in places where it was wont
before the grant of the said charter; for having a better price in
time to come, and for common profit of the whole kingdom.

Whereupon the said charter was repealed, as appears by the following letters patent:—

Edward, by the grace of God, King of England, etc.—Know ye, that we,
the liberties and privileges to 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, alledging that those
liberties and privileges 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, on the morrow of St. George,
in the 50th year of our reign, with the assent of the prelates,
earls, barons, nobles, and other great men, in the same parliament
being, have revoked, and totally made void.

Witness myself, at Westminister, etc.

Soon after the repeal of this charter, Edward III. died; and a commission of _ad quod dampnum_ was sued out by the burgesses of Yarmouth, concerning the said road, and directed to William de Ufford, earl of Suffolk; John Cavendish, William de Witchingham, William de Elmham, John de Sutton, Roger de Boys, and William Sibilys; dated 12th day of April, in the 1st of Richard II. alledging, that they were unable to pay the fee-farm rent tenths, and fifteenths, and to support the navy which they maintained in time of war, etc., unless they enjoyed the liberties granted to the burgesses by Edward, the late king of England. By virtue of this commission, and in consequence thereof, an inquisition was taken at Yarmouth, on Friday next after St. Faith, in the 2nd of Richard II. which certified that Yarmouth was a place of defence, and able to resist the enemies, if it be supplied with a sufficient number of forces; that it is a good port for supplying vessels with provisions and necessaries during the fishing season; and that the said town of Yarmouth hath a certain port, the entrance of which is much in decay. There was also another inquisition taken at Lowestoft the day following, which declared that Lowestoft is situated upon dry land, by the sea, and is not enclosed, nor has strength of itself to resist the enemies; but that the uniting of Kirkley road to the port of Yarmouth was to the damage of the men of Lowestoft. The result of these inquisitions was that a survey of both the towns being taken by the commissioners, and laid before the parliament held at Gloucester, the Wednesday before St. Luke, 1738, it was presented, that, upon the whole, the uniting of Kirkley road to the port of Yarmouth might be prejudicial to the neighbouring towns, yet it would be advantageous to the community at large; and thereupon the former grant, which had been repealed was again re-granted to Yarmouth, by a private act or ordinance of his parliament, and confirmed by a charter dated the 25th of November, in the 2nd of Richard II.

Upon proclaiming of this charter, by the under-sheriff of the county, at Lowestoft, a riot was made by the inhabitants of that town; and in consequence thereof, an inquisition was ordered to be taken, to enquire into the causes of this disturbance, but it does not appear what ensued thereupon.

Before the invention of printing, charters, statutes, etc., were proclaimed by the sheriff in every county by the king’s writ.

An inquisition taken before John Harsyk, sheriff of Norfolk, on Monday next after the nativity of the blessed virgin Mary, at Little Yarmouth, in the second year of the reign of King Richard the second, after the conquest by the oath of Roger de Hakenham, Walter Read, William Barker, and other jurors, etc.

Who say upon their oath, that whereas the aforesaid sheriff had sent
certain liberties, granted by the aforesaid lord the king, to the
bailiffs and commonalty of the town of Great Yarmouth, by John de
Foxley, his under sheriff, by virtue of a certain order of the lord
the king, to him directed on that account, to cause them to be
proclaimed, viz., on the feast of the apostles Philip and James last
past: (commonly called May day, on which a fair at Lowestoft was
held, as it is also now); on which day the aforesaid under sheriff,
at Lowestoft intended to proclaim the aforesaid liberties according
to the form thereof, and there openly shewed the letters patent of
the lord the king; on that account came Martin Terry, Stephen
Shelford, Andrew de Lound, Robert Shincale, J. Cote, Roger Caley,
Richard Gall, Thomas Smyth, John Smyth, Thomas Murring, Thomas
Stoneman, and William his brother, Henry Freberne, and Emma his wife,
J. Keene, Henry Boocher, of Lowestoft; also John de Rookesburgh, John
Spencer, and Alice his wife, with a greater company of men and women
of the town aforesaid, of whose names they are ignorant, who, by the
abetment and procurement of William Hammell, John Blower, Thomas de
Wade, Richard Skinner, William Lacye, etc., they violently resisted
and hindered him; some saying to the same sheriff, they would not
suffer him to depart; others forcing his letters from him, and so
with dangerous and reproachful words, etc., saying that if he dared
to come there for any execution of the lord the king, he should not
escape. 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
heads of his men and servants, to the pernicious example and contempt
of the lord the king and against his peace.

In witness whereof, etc.

It appears, that in the 4th of Richard II. the commons of Suffolk and Norfolk, and all the other counties of England, petitioned parliament, that whereas it had been formerly ordained by statute that every subject of the realm might buy and sell without disturbance in city, burgh, sea-port, and elsewhere, throughout all the kingdom; and if any charters or patents were granted to the contrary, they should be holden null, which statute was confirmed at the last parliament holden at Gloucester; and notwithstanding the said statute, a charter in the same parliament was granted to the people of Yarmouth, that none should buy or sell round the said town by seven leuks, etc. These petitions had their desired effect; for we find, that during the sittings of this parliament, the inquisitions taken in the first and second of Richard II. were so far reprehended, that an order was then given for a new commission, and that it should be more uprightly conducted; and the burgesses of Yarmouth had a penal command to make no disturbance in the mean time. Accordingly, in the 5th of Richard II. a commission was solemnly awarded with a quorum, and was set upon the Monday next after St. Matthew, the apostle, the same year, in Suffolk and the Thursday after in Norfolk, by the then lord chief justice of England and other great commissioners, who viewed the place, and did take their inquisitions, the one held at Lowestoft, the other at Norwich, before Robert Trisilian, John Argentium, and John Holcome, on the oaths of divers, knights, and other special gentlemen of both counties, whose presentment was certified in chancery, and afterwards laid before the parliament held in November following; and an act was made, that the new grants should be repealed for ever, and shall never be re-granted; that the charter should be called in and cancelled, and should also remain in the tower under special causes thereupon written, why it was so cancelled. {69a} Notwithstanding this Act, the burgesses renewed their petitions to have their charter re-granted: insomuch, that Richard II. in the sixth year of his reign, in order to form a new judgment of the affair, came to Yarmouth, and viewed the premises himself; and soon after, namely, in the eight year of his reign, the burgesses obtained a new grant, dated the 20th February, of all their former privileges till the meeting of the next parliament.

As these inquisitions tend to cast considerable light on this complicated affair, they are inserted hereunder:

The determinations of all the Inquisitions taken before Robert Trisilian, {69b} John Argentium, and John Holcome, the one at the town of Lowestoft, in Suffolk, and the other at Norwich, by the oaths of divers, knights, and other great gentlemen of both counties.

THE FIRST INQUISITION,

TAKEN AT LOWESTOFT, THE MONDAY AFTER THE FEAST OF ST. MATTHEW
THE APOSTLE, 5 RICHARD II.

That the new liberties and privileges to the burgesses of Yarmouth in
a certain place called Kirkley road, is prejudicial and hurtful to
the commonalty of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and all other
counties, etc.

1st. For that the liberties and privileges aforesaid be contrary to
common right, and also to the statute made for the common profit of
the realm of England; that is to say, that every one of the realm of
England may buy and sell without let in city, burgh, port of the sea,
and elsewhere, through all the realm of England: and if deeds or
patents be granted to the contrary, they shall be of no force; which
statute was confirmed in the last Parliament at Gloucester, holden in
the time of our lord the king that now is.

2nd. And also, that the ships anchoring in the said place of Kirkley
road, as often as a contrary wind come, they can by no means enter
into the port of Great Yarmouth; but are compelled to cast their
herrings into the sea.

3rd. And also for that the said burgesses of the town of Great
Yarmouth, by force of the said liberties and privileges to them of
new so given and granted, will not suffer the said commonalty of the
realm of England to buy or sell any victuals or merchandise, at any
time of the year in the said place of Kirkley road.

4th. And also the said commonalty do sustain and support great
griefs and hinderances by color of the liberties and privileges
aforesaid in this behalf.

5th. Also they say, that there is a great space of the high sea
between the said place called Kirkley road, and the entry of the said
port of Yarmouth, by reason of which space many ships may come from
the main sea into the said port of Great Yarmouth at their liberty,
and also go out; which place called Kirkley road, is in the county of
Suffolk, and before the grant of the liberties and privileges
aforesaid, was, and yet is, parcel of the same manor, etc.; and by
all the time aforesaid have, used to have, and of right ought to
have, all the wreck of the sea happening in the said place called
Kirkley road. Also they say, that the ships loaden with herrings can
return twice from Kirkley road into the sea to fish, whilst the chips
loaden with herrings going to the town of Yarmouth can but one in the
same time unload an return into the sea to fish.

6th. Also they say, that before the new grant of the liberties and
privileges aforesaid, all the ships and boats loaden with herrings,
and other victuals and merchandise, have used at their pleasure to
come as well to the port of the town of Great Yarmouth, as to the
said place called Kirkley road, without any manner of let, and to
unload their herrings, victuals, and other merchandise, as will in
one place as in the other; and have sold the same unto any man of the
realm of England willing to buy freely without any let or challenge
of any man.

7th. And at the same time it was the common profit, as well of the
commonalty of the realm of England, as of the said town of Yarmouth.

8th. Also they say, that the greatest commodity should be to all the
commonalty of the realm of England; that all ships and boats laden
with any victuals and merchandise might come as well to the port of
the town of Yarmouth, as to the said place of Kirkley road, freely at
their wills; and their victuals and merchandise might unload as well
in the one place as in the other; and the same without let of any
person, might sell to any of the realm of England that would buy the
same.

9th. And they further understand, that the men of Great Yarmouth may
sustain and bear towards our lord the king all charges which they did
sustain and bear before the granting of the liberties and privileges
aforesaid, and maintain the said town, although the same liberties
and privileges shall be revoked.

In witness, etc.

THE SECOND INQUISITION,

TAKEN AT NORWICH THE THURSDAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF ST. MICHAEL,
5 RICHARD II.

That it should be to the commodity of the commonalty of the counties
of Norfolk and Suffolk, and all other counties of the realm of
England:

1st. That all the ships and boats laden with herrings, and other
victuals and merchandise, coming to the parts of Norfolk and Suffolk,
upon the sea coast might unload their herrings, victuals and
merchandise, wheresoever they please, and the same without let of any
person, to sell to any of the realm of England that will buy the
same.

2nd. And that all the realm might lawfully buy the herrings,
victuals, and merchandise aforesaid, wheresoever within the counties
aforesaid. Also they say, that the burgesses of the town of Great
Yarmouth, by force of the liberties and privileges aforesaid, to them
of new so given and granted, do not suffer the said commonalty of the
realm of England, at any time of the year, to buy or sell any
victuals or merchandise in the said place of Kirkley road.