A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



ships not hosted to the Yarmouth men, or from 

 ships whose catches the Yarmouth men did not 

 require for themselves, on payment of half a mark 

 per last to the hosts, in addition to the price of 

 the fish. 



The contest had broken out again, however, 

 by the reign of Elizabeth, for in 1596, we find 

 the Commission appointed to inquire into the 

 lengthy quarrel, ordering that, pending a settle- 

 ment, the men of Yarmouth be not interrupted 

 in their fair and the herring fishing this season. 1 

 In the following year, Parliament ordered a 

 mark to be fixed defining the limits of the juris- 

 diction of Yarmouth over the fisheries. 



In 1659, notwithstanding the Act of Parlia- 

 ment of 1597, which it had been hoped was to 

 secure a lasting peace, hostilities were renewed, 

 the burgesses of Yarmouth proceeding to extreme 

 measures in order to enforce their claim to the 

 control of the fishery to the south of Lowestoft. 

 In 1660 James Munds of Lowestoft, a fisher- 

 man of forty-five years' standing, made an affi- 

 davit before the Master in Chancery that ' the 

 western fishermen and strangers have constantly 

 delivered herrings in the roads of Lowestoft to 

 several merchants of the town without disturb- 

 ance or molestation ' for many years, till the 

 Yarmouth men sent out a vessel furnished with 

 twenty-five men and several weapons of war 

 which anchored in the roads and ' daily chased 

 the fishermen, so that none durst deliver her- 

 rings.' Roger Hooper, a fisherman of Ramsgate 

 in Kent, was threatened by the men of war that 

 if he delivered any herrings at Lowestoft they 

 would seize him. Two fishermen were actually 

 hailed before the bailiff of Yarmouth and fined 

 401. In default their boats were to be con- 

 fiscated. 2 



The moment was inopportune for Lowestoft 

 at least to enter upon such a quarrel as was now 

 forced upon her, fire 3 and the Parliamentary 

 troops having reduced her to practical ruin. 

 Three public-spirited residents, however, came 

 forward to conduct the case, which was referred 

 to the Privy Council, and to defray the heavy 

 costs of the litigation a tax was levied on the 

 herring fishery, which in one year amounted to 

 jCS J 9 3 s - &. During the progress of the suit, 

 which lasted for four years, Yarmouth continued 

 to interfere seriously, not only with the Lowes- 

 toft fishing, but also, in order to emphasize their 

 claims, with the foreign craft frequenting the 

 east-coast waters. Two Dutch and French 

 vessels were seized, the former being despoiled of 

 their boat-load of herrings, the other of their 

 cooking utensils and of the sum of i y. ^d. 



1 Hist. M SS. Com. Rep. ix, App. i, 318. 



* Gillingwater, Hist, of Lowestoft, 155. 



* In 1644 a great fire destroyed a great part of 

 the town, the loss of the fish-house owners being 

 from 25 to 4$ each. Mr. Josiah Wilde alone 

 lost .400. 



In 1 66 1 the towns of Orford, Aldeburgh, 

 Dunwich, and Ipswich, seeing their own trade in 

 danger should Yarmouth prove successful in the 

 struggle, and reinforced by the countenance of 

 the Fishmongers' Company, came to the assis- 

 tance of Lowestoft, and petitioned that the 

 inhabitants might be confirmed in their ancient 

 and separate rights of fishing. 



The long dispute was not finally closed till 

 1741, when, thanks to the intervention of 

 Dr. Lewis, then Judge of the Admiralty Court 

 of Suffolk, a compromise was arrived at, and a 

 boundary post which was placed on the confines 

 of the disputed waters ended the quarrel in 

 favour of Lowestoft. 



The seventeenth century was at once a 

 period of stagnation and of stir in the fishing 

 records of the county. The very existence of 

 such towns as Southwold, Walberswick, and 

 possibly Dunwich itself, was owing, it has been 

 pointed out, in the first place, to fishing necessi- 

 ties ; 4 and when, with the decay of their havens, 

 their staple industry began to decline, it was 

 inevitable that they should revert to their original 

 obscurity. 



But if calamity had overtaken three at least 

 of the Suffolk ports at this date, the industry and 

 perseverance of their fishermen remained un- 

 daunted by all the successive reverses which 

 were brought upon them by the steady encroach- 

 ment of the sea as well as by frequent disasters 

 by fire. ' It is pitiful,' writes Tobias Gentleman 

 in 1614, 'the trouble and damage that all the 

 men of these three towns (Southwold, Walbers- 

 wick, and Dunwich) do daily sustain by their 

 naughty harbour.' 5 Of their seamen, however, 

 he was able to add, with the pardonable pride of 

 a Suffolk man, ' they be a very good breed of 

 fishermen.' 



Friendly relations existed at this time between 

 the town of Lowestoft and the men of Aldeburgh, 

 an indenture having been made in 1608 between 

 the two ports whereby the Aldeburgh fishermen 

 should pay no duties at Lowestoft for unloading 

 herrings or sprats. 



In 1619 Letters Patent were issued declaring 

 the importance of maintaining the havens of Dun- 



* 'The first Adventurers,' writes Gardner, 'were 

 very likely of the craft (of fishermen),' who ' for con- 

 venience erected huts, and then houses for habitation ' 

 at ' these places of note for the fishery." Hist. Dun- 

 tvich, 189. 



5 England's Way to Win Wealth, 26. The father of 

 this author, Thomas Gentleman, who, his son informs 

 us, paid the composition levied on fish in the reigns 

 of four sovereigns, was a much respected resident of 

 Southwold, where he died at the age of 98. The 

 following entry appears in the Southwold Register 

 relative to this old inhabitant : ' F. I, 1609, July 30. 

 Tho, Gentleman, he lived above fourscore years in 

 perfect sight and memorie, and in his flourishing time 

 for building of ships and many other commendable 

 parts he continued in his place unmatchable.' 



294 



