The Lothingland-Lowestoft-Great Yarmouth Disputes (Part 1)

“All Because of the Herring”

Great Yarmouth’s disputes with its near-neighbours in Suffolk, during the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods, are generally well known in outline – if not in detail. The following series of notes (summarised, by the writer, from the sources cited) relates to the long-running conflict between the Norfolk borough and its Suffolk neighbours, regarding the former’s legally granted ommercial rights and its control of the local herring-trade. Yarmouth’s initial conflict was with the nearby communities of Gorleston and Little Yarmouth, which was effectively one township divided into southern and northern sectors. King John’s grant of a market to the manor of Lothingland in 1211 (following on from his bestowing of Yarmouth’s first charter, in 1208) was bound to have caused trouble on both sides of the River Yare almost from the word “go”, with Gorleston being the hub of the hundredal jurisdiction. Once market-rights had been established by royal approval, “the men of Lothingland” (as they are often termed in documentation of the time) had legitimate justification for organised commercial activity on their side of the River Yare and opportunity also to infringe Yarmouth’s privileges and see what they could get away with. More than 100 years of conflict ensued, before Yarmouth was able to fully establish its superiority over its troublesome near-neighbours – by which time a more potent threat to its authority had arisen further down the coast.

The town of Lowesoft had the status of manorial outlier only, at the time of Domesday (1086), but by the year 1212 had become a manor in its own right. Among the many details of its status revealed in the Lothingland Hundred Roll of 1274 is one which records that it had right of gaol and stocks (along with Gorleston) – this, showing that it now shared judicial control of Lothingland Half-hundred with the manorial hub. During the time of conflict between Great Yarmouth and Gorleston-Little Yarmouth (the latter, known later as Southtown), Lowestoft was quietly developing its economic strength and local influence, almost unnoticed perhaps, a few miles further to the south – until, by the time that Yarmouth had subdued its immediate rival(s) in terms of length-of-time and physical proximity, it found another one flexing its commercial muscles within its compass. And one, moreover, that was sufficiently close to cause real trouble, but far enough removed also to make its subjugation difficult (if not impossible) to achieve. If the Great Yarmouth-Gorleston-Little Yarmouth disputes were a protracted affair at more than 100 years, then the ensuing strife with Lowestoft was of epic proportions in terms of time, stretching to well over three centuries’ duration.

It is hoped that the pages which follow, covering the first phase of contention (as well as those to feature in the autumn edition of Suffolk Review, looking at the second) will serve to give some sense of how local people sought to use governing institutions to resolve their mercantile and civic rivalries by employing a technique which would, today, be described as “lobbying”. As the years went by, the centre of attention increasingly came to focus on the presence offshore, during the autumn, of a certain, small, pelagic fish – a species which, in some ways, had perhaps as much of the “silver demon” about it as the “silver darling”, considering all the controversy and strife that its capture and processing caused!

There was no way in which this article, and its follow-up, could have been set out here in continuous prose, as a means of delivering the narrative. It would have run to an excessive number of pages and end-notes. Therefore, a means of presentation focusing on key-dates and events in note-form (sequentially arranged) has been adopted, with different fonts and underlining used as a means of varying the text visually and making the information easy to take in. Spacing-lines have been employed to make the text less dense than it might otherwise have been, except where different events occurred on the same day or where closely connected ones sit naturally together. Commentary by the writer has been added where felt to be useful, as a means of creating context and providing further, relevant details. For those readers who already know about this long-standing local commercial and civic saga, it is hoped that the pages which follow will provide further information. For those who don’t, it may serve perhaps as something of an eye-opener. 

18 March 1208 – charter of incorporation granted to Yarmouth, with market rights (for an annual fee-farm, or rent, to the Crown of £55) – confirmations of Henry III, Edward I, Edward II and Edward III followed the original grant. (RC, 175-6; CoCR, 3, 236 & 5, 224; NRO, Y/C2/1.            

May 1211 – a) Grant of a weekly (Sunday) market to Lothingland Half-hundred manor – located in northern Gorleston, near the river (possibly, the area of Malthouse Lane junction with Southtown Road-Beccles Road) – flooding caused it to be moved further to the north into Little Yarmouth/Southtown, with the trading-day changed to Thursday – house encroachment onto the market-place by inhabitants of Little Yarmouth, noted in the 1274 Hundred Roll, is perhaps suggestive of diminishing function.

                  b) Trading activity allowed by the grant, on the Suffolk side of the River Yare.

                c) Early disputes between Yarmouth citizens and “the men of Lothingland” as to which merchandise could be traded – did “lesser foodstuffs” include herrings?

                   d) Provocative acts carried out by both sides.

               e) Market’s decline, plus demands on its trading-space to locate dwellings (partly caused by said decline) probably resulted in eventual relocation to the southern end of Gorleston High Street.

• The Internet resource-site Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516, in citing the year 1211 as the founding-point of the Lothingland market, refers to the Patent Rolls of 13 King John as the source. However, the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth years of John’s reign are missing from the published versions of both the Patent Rolls (1835) and the Charter Rolls (1837) – which presumably means that the original documentation was missing at the time of printing. Has it, then, resurfaced since? Or is some earlier reference being used?

• The grant of the market was made to William de Longspée, Earl of Salisbury (1176-1226), an illegitimate son of Henry II and therefore King John’s half-brother, who was lord of Lothingland and dozens of other manors throughout the realm.. On 2 May 1211, John and the Court were in Norwich, before moving on and arriving at Nottingham ten days later (see the Internet site, The Itinerary of King John). De Longspée was very likely to have been accompanying John and it seems logical to suppose that their proximity to Lothingland was used by some of the area’s leading inhabitants to lobby for the grant of a market while the Court was in temporary residence locally.  

• Lothingland title leased by the Crown to Geoffrey and Reginald du Bois [de Bosco] by 1199, at a price of £61 4s 0d p.a. (ref. Internet source, The Lands of the Normans in England, 1204-44) – William de Longspée (Earl of Salisbury) was lord before 1212, and up until his death in March 1226 – followed in June 1226 by Roger Fitz Osbert [al. le Fitz Aubern], of Somerleyton, on a three-year tenancy at £80 p.a. – the “trustworthy men of Lothingland” were admitted in June 1230, at £70 p.a. – in December 1237, the manor was conveyed by Henry III (along with other royal estates) to Dervorgille de Balliol, in exchange for lands held by her in Cheshire – taken back by Edward I in 1294, when he dispossessed John Balliol II (King of Scotland and her son) of his English estates – granted to his nephew, John de Dreux (Earl of Richmond) in November 1302.

• The de Balliol conveyance, of 10 December 1237 included not only the Lothingland manor, but Great Yarmouth borough also and its £55 annual fee-farm.     (CCR, Henry III, vol. 4, 12)  

• The de Longspée, Fitz Osbert and “men of Lothingland” tenancies are to be found referred to in CFR, Henry III, C60/22 (no.130), C60/24 (no. 162), C60/29 (no. 409) and C60/30 (nos. 156 & 164).

• The disposal of the Lothingland title, by the Crown, to absentee lords (particularly remote, far-distant ones) meant that the manor effectively remained in the control of influential local people.

• The gradual decline of Gorleston, spread over a century or more, was largely caused by its proximity to Yarmouth and was definitely a factor in the rise of Lowestoft, which had become a manor in its own right by 1212. It was still smaller than Gorleston in the 1274 Hundred Roll, but with an equal share in the governance of Lothingland Half-hundred (cf. with the Domesday situation, when it was a mere outlier to the manorial hub in Gorleston). At some point, unable to be determined, Lowestoft and Lothingland manors became inter-connected without ever merging into a single entity – and this was an important step in the town eventually becoming its home-area’s dominant community.

15 February 1228 – commission of oyer and terminer given to Martin de Pateshall and associates to investigate the activities of Roger Fitz Osbert, lord of the Lothingland manor – alleged by citizens of Yarmouth that he had taken [illegally] customs duties from their vessels.                                                                      (CPR, Henry III, 2, 210 & Swinden, 63-5)

• Oyer and terminer is a partial translation of the medieval French oyer et terminer (“to hear and to determine”) and refers to the operation of itinerant royal justices on the assize circuit. 

• Reference made to a charter of 1228, giving Yarmouth complete control of the River Yare on both sides of the water.                                                                  (Ecclestone, 94-5)           • This grant of privileges has not been traced in CCR, CoCR or CPR, but Henry Manship, in The History of Great Yarmouth, 162, implies that the town had once had a copy of it. He further names Martin de Pateshall’s companion justices as Walter de Evermewe, Fulk de Banignard and Havo de Stanhoe, and he says that their judgement was in favour of Yarmouth (regarding Fitz Osbert’s taking of customs) and gave the town sole control of its haven. It may well be that this legal decision was regarded as a charter of rights.

4 October 1235 – order given to the bailiffs of Lothingland to assist Jakelinum Engaine in collecting the revenues due from the Yarmouth herring fair – this, because the Lothingland manor was part of the Crown Demesne.                        (CCR, Henry III, 3, 319)

• This royal authorisation of involvement in the seasonal, autumn Free Fair (29 September to 11 November) by the Lothingland authorities was probably not received with great enthusiasm in Yarmouth! Exactly why the Government should have involved Lothingland officers in the collection of tax is not made clear. Was it, perhaps, a means of keeping the Yarmouth officials themselves under some kind of scrutiny?

10 December 1237 – grant of the manors of Yarmouth and Lothingland to Dervorgille de Balliol, as referred to in the May 1211 notes above.  (CCR, Henry III, 4, 12 & Swinden, 65-6)

17 September 1263 – commission of oyer and terminer authorised in the following case: a royal order had been given to the Sheriff of Norfolk to visit Yarmouth and cause Clement Thurkil, William Flach and others, accused of the deaths of Nicholas Enges, Henry le Careter and Simon Gase, to be brought before Suffolk JPs – Adam de Greynvill and Geoffrey de Roenges to adjudicate in the matter and also in that of Yarmouth trespasses against Little Yarmouth and Gorleston.                                                                      (CPR, Henry III, 5, 288)

26 October 1272 – royal confirmation, by letters patent, of Yarmouth penal laws and rights within the borough (including gaol procedure).      (CoCR, 2, 185-6 & NRO, COL 6/1)

0.0.1274 – local jurors testified, to Hundred Roll commissioners, that Yarmouth burgesses (during Henry III’s reign) had taken control of the water which divided Norfolk and Suffolk, of which a moiety [southern side] belonged to the manor of Lothingland – this action had caused the manor’s value to diminish by £10 p.a. [£80 to £70] – said burgesses had also collected customs from ships on the southern side of the river and charged fees for the drying of fishing-nets on the marshes of Stonere, Fulholm and Buterdish.                     (LHR, 116-17)

• See the entry of 15 February 1228 above.

• The £10 decrease in value occurred in 1230, when “the men of Lothingland” took over the manorial title from Roger Fitz Osbert.

• Gorleston had seven areas of marshland altogether. Mickle-marsh, Ubbe-marsh, Northtown-marsh and Cobholm are not referred to here.

• The Lothingland Hundred Roll of 1274 contains many fascinating details of that particular jurisdiction, one of which may relate directly to the conflict between certain of its inhabitants (notably, those of Gorleston and Little Yarmouth) and the citizens of Great Yarmouth. The documentation clearly shows that leading townsmen of the latter community held property in Gorleston-Little Yarmouth of insufficient nature or extent to be a significant part of their commercial enterprises, but with the ability to integrate them into the administrative structure of the Lothingland manor, as tenants, so as to be aware (from the inside, as it were) of commercial developments and activity on the Suffolk side of the River Yare. Thus, what may be termed a “watching-brief” was able to be kept, legitimately, simply because the holding of land in the rival townships gave the people concerned a bona fide presence there!

• The Hundred Roll informs us that the following citizens of Yarmouth held land in the Northtown common field (an area closest in proximity to the town, adjacent to the crossing-point of the River Yare): William Aleys [Aleyn], one strip; William Gerberge, one strip; William de la Mawe, one strip; Roger Perebrun, two strips (one unused); and Robert Thirkyld, one strip. Four of these men were (or had been) port bailiffs at one time or another, while Perebrun (al. Perebroun) belonged to another of Yarmouth’s leading families – a later member, John, being a commander in the English fleet at the great naval victory of Sluys, in 1340.

• Additionally, de la Mawe held a 2½-acre piece of land somewhere else in Gorleston, while a man named Thomas Thurkild shared a profitable 5-acre turbary in Lowestoft with the Abbot of Langley (an area long since flooded and known as Leathes Ham, abutting onto what is now Normanston Park). Thurkild might well have been the Yarmouth port bailiff of that name, with a legitimate means of monitoring what was taking place in the southern sector of Lothingland. Regardless of the differences in spelling, Robert Thirkyld, of the previous note, and the man here (as well as Clement Thurkil of 17 September 1263) were almost certainly members of the same family-group – and of Anglo-Saxon origins.

• Further Yarmouth “infiltration” is to be noted in the presence of Ashman family members (two small pieces of land in Gapton), John Bruman (two small pieces of land in the Brotherton sector of Hopton) and Oliver With (two land-holdings in Lound – one very small and a much larger one, with house attached – and a shared 100-acre serjeanty in Lound, Ashby and Somerleyton). Both Bruman and With also served, at one time or another, as port bailiffs. 

2 August 1302 – commission of oyer and terminer granted to William de Carleton and William Haward, because of a plea from Yarmouth that it did not have the money to pay its farm [annual rent of £55 due to the Crown] – enquiry made as to whether it would be to the King’s detriment if houses were built on the market-place and other empty spaces and the rents charged used to help pay the farm – such revenue to be borne by the town’s inhabitants and their heirs, in perpetuity.                                                                   (CPR, Edward I, 4, 87) 

• Might the encroachment noted above (0.0.1274) onto the Lothingland market-place have influenced this enquiry from Yarmouth? And was it a serious one or simply an attempted means of leverage in gaining relief from its financial obligations?

6 August 1302 – commission of oyer and terminer granted to William de Carleton and William Haward on behalf of Yarmouth, concerning men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston who, at times of Yarmouth fairs [i.e. the autumn Herring Fair], attracted vessels laden with herrings and other fish and merchandise away from Yarmouth itself to their own towns – jury to be appointed from the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk.                    (CPR, Edward I, 4, 87)

26 November 1302 – grant of the manor of Lothingland, to John de Britannia [al. John de Dreux, Earl of Richmond – nephew of Edward I].                                            (CPR Edward I, 4, 97)

• No reference made to Great Yarmouth being included, as previously, with regard to the de Balliol occupancy of 10 December 1237. 

• There are three references in the Close Roll entries of 1305 (10 March, 18 October and 8 November) to de Dreux holding Lothingland manor, but not Yarmouth borough. (CCR, Edward I, 5, 245, 293 & 305) 

22 July 1306 – confirmatory re-grant of a charter of Henry III, giving Yarmouth burgesses the right of free trade in fish and other goods, on condition that brokers [middle-men] did not interfere in the process and that no forestalling took place. (CPR, Edward I, 4, 455)

• No direct record of a Henry III transaction of 1228 has been found in CCR, CoCR or CPR. The reference here might be to either of the grants of 25 March 1256 and 28 September 1261 cited in the confirmation of 28 March 1314 (though, again, no specific record of these has been found).

• Stated in The History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth that the de Balliol bailiffs [of Lothingland] had, for many years, taken tolls and customs in Yarmouth, this behaviour not being contested because of the family’s powerful position.                                       (Swinden, 241)

• C.J. Palmer, in his notes added to Henry Manship’s history of the town, comments on the de Balliol and de Dreux occupancies of the Yarmouth borough title.                   (Manship, 322)  • Patent Roll and Close Roll entries do not reveal any interest on the part of de Dreux, so Edward I had probably taken Yarmouth back into Crown control after the 1294 confiscation of de Balliol estates in England. That family’s holding of the Yarmouth fee-farm did not entitle Lothingland bailiffs to the right of taking tolls in Yarmouth (which was the task of the port bailiffs), but with the borough and half-hundred in the same hands it gave them both opportunity and excuse to “muscle in”!

10 November 1306 – reference made to the granting of certain English estates of John de Balliol [King of Scotland] to John of Brittany being made on 1 August 1299 – followed by the grant of the manor of Lothingland on 26 November 1302, as above. (CPR, Edward I, 4, 471)                               

• Again, no mention is made of Great Yarmouth.                           

15 February 1307 – commission of oyer and terminer granted to Peter Malorre [Malory] and Hervey de Stanton, on petition to the King from John de Gorleston, William Man, Simon de Belton, Bartholomew Love, John de Blundeston, William de Gapton, Thomas de Enges and Roger Woderove, men and merchants of South Yarmouth [i.e. Little Yarmouth/Southtown] and Gorleston, that Henry Rose, William Fastolf, John Elys, William de Gosford, Robert de Norfolk, Alexander de Ocle [Acle?], Walter le White, Peter Ratele, Thomas Starling and others had taken ten ships laden with firewood, herring, fish, corn, salt and other victuals at the said towns and “led them away”.                                                             (CPR, Edward I, 4, 541)

15 February 1307 – oyer and terminer also granted to the same two justices, “on trustworthy complaint”, that Henry Rose and the same associates had taken 200 ships of “merchants strangers”, loaded as above at the same towns, and would not permit them to pay the customs due to the King “by reason of the said half hundred”.                            (CPR, Edward I, 4, 541)

• The latter incident suggests that the Yarmouth men had prevented payment of customs due because these vessels, in using Little Yarmouth-Gorleston, were bypassing the head-port and any collection of customs outside of it would have seemed to diminish Yarmouth’s authority and give its rivals a status which they did not, in law, possess.                                     

15 July 1308 – order made to the Sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk to proceed to Little Yarmouth, Gorleston and Yarmouth itself and hold inquisitions there concerning acts of “armed force” by both parties in their dispute (in breach of the undecided pleas made by them) – guilt to be established, where possible, and the offenders brought before the King on 2 May 1309.                                                                                         (CCR, Edward II, 1, 121)

12 August 1308 – reference made to various former de Balliol family estates (including Lothingland manor) being “lately granted” to John of Brittany [John de Dreux]. (CoCR, 3, 121-2)                 

• In a medieval sense, “lately” does not necessarily mean “recently” (see 26 November 1302). 

15 November 1308 – grant of a weekly Wednesday market and annual fair at Lowestoft made to John de Dreux, Earl of Richmond, lord of the Lothingland and Lowestoft (titles bestowed in 1302) – again, this suggests that, at some point, the two manors had become inter-connected.                                                                                                    (CoCR, 3, 123)

28 March 1314 – royal confirmation, by letters patent, of previous Yarmouth charters: those of 18 March 1208, 25 March 1256, 28 September 1261, 12 June 1285, 1 July 1285 (letters patent), 28 April 1298 (letters patent) and 22 July 1306 (letters patent). (CoCR, 3, 236-7)

• No record found in CCR, CoCR or CPR of 25 March 1256 or 28 September1261.                                                           

20 January - 9 March 1315 [Parliamentary session extended beyond these dates, into May] – reference made to a petition of John of Brittany [John de Dreux, Earl of Richmond] re harassment of his tenants in Little Yarmouth and Gorleston – his petitions and those of Yarmouth had been heard by the Council at Westminster on 9 May 1315 – enquiry ordered to be carried out in Yarmouth and in Little Yarmouth-Gorleston (as to the matter of forestalling and other things) and to report back – both parties ordered not to commit acts of trespass against each other.                                                    (PRME, Edward II, January 1315, 61(49) ) 

8 October 1315 – the plea re dissensions between the men of Yarmouth and those of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston would be settled at the next parliament to be held [27 January - 20 February 131                                                                                    (CCR, Edward II, 2, 251)

• No record found of this; nor at the parliament of January 1318.                   

24 September 1318 – prohibition order made to the bailiffs and men of Yarmouth, and to those of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, not to inflict damage upon each other – order given to the Sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk to prevent this from happening. (CCR, Edward II, 3, 100)                     

25 March 1326 – royal writ of 14 January 1326 (made at South Elmham) sent to the Sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, ordering the men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston to appear at Norwich on 22 January 1327 to present their case against Yarmouth’s privileges – lengthy account follows of both sides’ arguments against each other.        (CCR, Edward II, 4, 457-61)

• Nb. that the Bishop(s) of Norwich had a palace (effectively, a “rural retreat”) at South Elmham St. Cross, near Bungay, adjacent to the site of a former minster. Edward II was being hosted there.  

8 May 1327 – royal confirmation of the 1314 Yarmouth charter-endorsement above.    

                                                                                                                               (CoCR, 4, 13)

25 June 1328 – Earl of Richmond (and his Lothingland tenants) claimed the right of possession of one half of Yarmouth haven and of the customs revenues on ships’ cargoes, maintaining that the Lothingland title had held that right until Henry III’s charter had negated it (see 15 February 1228) – Yarmouth defended its own exclusive rights and cited judgements of 1306 (charter-confirmation of 22 July) and 1326 [8 May 1327?] in its favour. (Swinden, 250-1; Manship, 159; Ecclestone, 94).                     

• There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the manor of Lothingland had ever had a legal claim of any kind on the privileges of Great Yarmouth. John de Dreux may well have been harking back to Roger Fitz Osbert’s illicit taking of customs payments in Yarmouth when he was Lothingland’s lord, 100 years before (see 15 February 1228), or to the de Balliol family’s holding both the half-hundred and borough titles (10 December 1237) when bailiffs of the former jurisdiction reputedly interfered in the collection of tolls in Yarmouth haven. See notes on 22 July 1306 above.

3 August 1328 – order given that the men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston be allowed to load and discharge goods at their own quays, without impediment, and that they were to respect Yarmouth’s privileges – men of Yarmouth required to acknowledge the rights of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston and not to interfere with them – this, in order to create “peace and concord” between both sides.                                                     (CCR, Edward III, 1, 309-10)

1330-2 – parliamentary enquiries into Yarmouth’s status and rights authorised, in the face of counter-claims from Lothingland’s lord [John de Dreux, ob. 1334] and his tenantry.                                                                                                                                           (Manship, 160-2)

• Nothing found in PRME for these three years.                                                                                                                      

12 May 1331 – writ made to Sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, ahead of an enquiry to be held by John de Stratford, at Norwich, on 11 June [re Yarmouth and Lothingland disputes] – stated that, before the charter of 2 July 1306 [sic] granted by Edward I to Yarmouth, ships had unloaded cargoes on either side of the River Yare – after said grant, discharge was at Yarmouth only, to the detriment of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston. (CIM, 2, 293-4, no. 1199.)

• Date of the 1306 charter cited given as 22 July in CoCR, 3, 236.

19 June 1331– indenture from the commonalty of Yarmouth and from the men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston submitting their disputes re the loading, unloading and entry of ships in the water and port of Yarmouth – submission made to John de Stratford and to others of the King’s Council.                                                                                    (CAD, 1, 566, no. 1799)

25 June 1331 – ratification of the declaration, made at Norwich on 3 June 1331, at the enquiry led by John de Stratford, Bishop of Winchester and Chancellor of England: Yarmouth was the only port present and its function belonged to the town – all customs due were to be paid there, but Little Yarmouth and Gorleston vessels were exempt if landing goods on their side of the river – ships entering harbour with herrings or other fish or uncustomed cargoes were to discharge at Yarmouth only (Little Yarmouth and Gorleston craft excepted) – there was no share of the haven or of the dividing river belonging to Lothingland – neither party in previous disputes was to molest the other, with £100 penalty imposed for so doing.                                            (CPR, Edward III, 2, 124 & Manship, 163-4)

• It appears that the Norwich enquiry had been held earlier than originally planned (see previous entry but one).

• Little Yarmouth-Gorleston ships were declared exempt from paying tax on goods landed at their quays because Lothingland manor, as ancient demesne of the Crown, was free of such obligation. This would not have applied to wine, which was always taxed and would have entered via the head-port [Great Yarmouth].

8 October 1331 – disputes and civil disorder continued after John de Stratford’s enquiry – in a directive to the bailiffs and citizens of Yarmouth, the King ordered representatives of both warring parties to appear at Westminster on 21 October to account for their actions. (CCR, Edward III, 2, 327-8)            

28 May 1332 – order given to Robert de Morley to send, to the King, indictments against the men of Little Yarmouth made at John de Stratford’s enquiry – these to reach him fifteen days before midsummer, so that they might be determined upon.              (CCR, Edward III, 2, 569-70)

10 July 1332 – endorsement of a charter of 34 Edward I (22 July 1306), which stated that all kinds of merchandise brought by ship could only be unloaded at Yarmouth, and nowhere else – John of Brittany [i.e. John de Dreux, Earl of Richmond] and his tenants were allowed to load and unload their own vessels at Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, paying the customs due thereon (this, after plea made to be able to do so) – men of these two towns not allowed to try to attract trade away from Yarmouth – both parties to abide by the decisions above.                                                                                     (CPR, Edward III, 2, 316-17 & NRO, Y/C2/3)

• The Gorleston-Little Yarmouth request that customs charges due be paid by their merchants probably related to outgoing goods (mainly wool, woollen cloth, sheepskins, hides, leather, butter, cheese, lard and grease) and may have been a way of validating trading activity carried out under the shadow of Yarmouth – no complaint could be made by the latter if export dues were being paid.

21 February - 2 March 1334 – reference made, at Parliament held in York, to the bad effect on the whole herring trade, at home and abroad, caused by Yarmouth’s actions (inc. price increases of 40d per 1,000 fish) – “said community” [i.e. Little Yarmouth and Gorleston] asked that the King assign justices to adjudicate upon points of dispute and to impose penalties if necessary – decision made to uphold the current judgement in favour of Yarmouth, but also to appoint judges to hear submissions and determine trespasses. (PRME, C65/4, 14)   

20 April 1334 – commission of oyer and terminer granted to Geoffrey le Scrope, John de Stonere, John de Cantebrigge [Cambridge], Ralph de Bockynge and William Scot to enquire into complaints made by men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston concerning the outrages committed by Yarmouth on them and on visiting merchants – this, after the final judgement of the King and Council re the long-standing discord between them – complaints made at the previous Parliament, held in York.                                                (CPR, Edward III, 2, 577-8)

• A new adversary. It was somewhere around this part of the 14th century that Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, collectively, began to decline in importance as Great Yarmouth’s main opponent(s), with Lowestoft increasingly assuming that role. The Suffolk town had been developing its fishing and mercantile capacity for some little whike, relocating its area of settlement onto a cliff-top site and building the extremities (tower and high-altar crypt) of what is still the third longest church in the county – exceeded only by those of St. Mary and St. James, in Bury (the latter serving as the St. Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocese cathedral).
•  Following the great naval victory over the French at the Battle of Sluys, off the coast  of Flanders in June 1340, Edward III granted the borough of Great Yarmouth a coat of arms with the three golden lions of England crossed with three silver herrings - fish which were a foundation block of the town’s economy. This, in recognition of the large number of vessels supplied by the town in the English fleet and the part played by leading citizen Sir John Perebrun (al. Perbroun) as one of its commanders.

• A major and detrimental impact on all communities at this time (regardless of their location) would have been the effect of the Black Death during 1348 and 1349. Yarmouth, with its often cited total of 7,000 deaths (out of a stated population of 10,000) has probably been given too high an estimate with regard to both figures, given the unreliability of early “statistics”. O.J. Benedictow, in his formative and important work, has calculated an overall mortality rate of c. 60% for England (and for Western Europe, in general), which would produce c. 6,000 dead. However, Yarmouth’s population was probably no more than half of 10,000 – a total number that could not have been accommodated within the walled area of the town, which was no more than about a mile long and a quarter of that distance at its widest point.

• Manship’s The History of Great Yarmouth, edited by C.J. Palmer in 1854, cites 7,000 deaths (pp. 35, 100, 158 & 221), while Swinden’s The History and Antiquities of the Ancient Burgh of Great Yarmouth in the County of Norfolk (1772) gives 7,052 (p. 814). Neither writer mentions the town’s overall population. 

• Regardless of what the town’s population actually was, the ravages of Plague were a body-blow in social, economic and demographic terms! Lowestoft, which may have had a population of c. 500-600 people at the time, would also have lost more than half of them to the disease. Recovery from such human devastation must have taken decades.

CREDIT: David Butcher

[To be continued.]

Reference key: 

CAD – Catalogue of Ancient Deeds.

CIM – Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous.

CCR – Calendar of Close Rolls.

CoCR – Calendar of Charter Rolls.

CFR – Calendar of Fine Rolls.

CPR – Calendar of Patent Rolls.

Ecclestone [A.W., ed.] – Henry Manship’s Great Yarmouth (1971).

LHR – The Lothingland Hundred Roll of 1274 (ed. J.W.N. Hervey, 1902).

Manship [H.] – The History of Great Yarmouth (1619) – ed. C.J. Palmer, 1854.                 

NRO – Norfolk Record Office.

PRME – The Parliamentary Rolls of Medieval England.

RC – Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinens (Charter Rolls in the Tower of London).

Swinden [H.], The History and Antiquities of the Ancient Burgh of Great Yarmouth in the County of Norfolk (1772). 

• All documentation referred to in the key (except for Ecclestone, Lothingland Hundred Roll and Norfolk Record Office) is available on the Internet from various digitised volumes of published Printed Primary Sources and the PRMEspecialist-site. Both Great Yarmouth histories (those of Manship and Swinden) are also able to be accessed online.
• The numbers following most of the different works cited refer to volumes and pages in those particular books. CFR and PRME have reference numbers only relating to the material reproduced.

Article first published in Yarmouth Archaeology & Local History 2019 (with its second part) as one continuous piece. Published in two parts in Suffolk Review, New Series 74 & 75 (Spring and Autumn, 2020), and in the Lowestoft Archaeological & Local History Society Annual Report, January 2022 & 2023).