THIRD AND LAST CONTEST WITH YARMOUTH ABOUT THEIR CHARTER.—CONCLUSION.
It was while our merchants were suffering from their losses caused by the great fire, that the Yarmouth people made a third effort to enforce the privileges of their ancient charters now confirmed and strengthened by the charter of James I. It appears that for some years before 1659, they had sent boats into the roads off Lowestoft to exact harbour dues from fishing boats, but in this year they took a much stronger measure. They had in their harbour a large ship, probably the Queen’s ship which we have before heard of as used for war-like purposes. They fitted out this ship as a “man of war” and sent her to ride in the roads off Lowestoft. The ship was formally “commissioned” by the Yarmouth bailiffs under the command of Thomas Allen, a namesake of the Lowestoft champion, to prevent the Western fishermen and other strangers selling their fish to the Lowestoft merchants in the roads; with power to seize their ships, etc. The “man of war” was sufficiently formidable to terrorise the strangers, but not the Lowestoft men, who having well armed themselves for the encounter, went out in their boats to attack it. According to the statement of the Yarmouth bailiffs—
“The chief men of the said town came upon the said Thomas Allen and his company in the road of the said town, violently and riotously in boats, and with force of arms, etc., drave him and them out of the road, threatening them otherwise to fire their vessel. Whereby the said Thomas Allen with his vessel and company was forced to come away without doing anything.” { 93}
In consequence of this vigorous action on the part of the Lowestoft men the ship was sent again sufficiently armed to resist any second attack, and
“With a flag on the maintop-roast head, having 25 men on board, armed with swords, half-pikes, muskets, and a great store of stones, the ship sails into the roads of Corton, Lowestoft and Kirkley, during the chiefest part of the season, daily chasing the fishermen so that none durst deliver any herrings.” { 94a}
According to a statement in a petition of the inhabitants of Lowestoft to the House of Lords, { 94b} the effect of these very high-handed proceedings on the part of the Yarmouth bailiffs was that the Lowestoft merchants were deprived of “at least a thousand lasts of herrings,” which they would otherwise have purchased from their visitors during the season. This was probably an exaggeration, but it was evident that unless this assertion of their privileges by the Yarmouth bailiffs was at once resisted, the herring-trade of Lowestoft would be annihilated at a time when its merchants had been rebuilding and enlarging their fish-houses with a view to an increase of their fish-curing trade. It was stated that at this time they had capacity in their fish-houses for “hanging” 700 lasts of herrings. This number of lasts were “hung” in the Lowestoft curing houses in 1674, { 94c} a larger number than could be hung at one time in our present curing houses. But the number of herrings cured in the town would only be part of the quantity passing through the merchant’s hands—then and now.