Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:58:04.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliament, Privy Council, and Local Politics in Elizabethan England: The Yarmouth-Lowestoft Fishing Dispute*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

David M. Dean
Get access

Extract

In his celebrated presidential addresses to the Royal Historical Society between 1974 and 1976 Sir Geoffrey Elton explored three “points of contact” between central authority and local communities: Parliament, the royal council, and the royal court. Parliament, he argued, was “the premier point of contact,” which “fulfilled its functions as a stabilizing mechanism because it was usable and used to satisfy legitimate and potentially powerful aspirations.” Elsewhere Elton, and other parliamentary historians such as Michael Graves, Norman Jones, and Jennifer Loach, have stressed parliament's role as a clearing house for the legislative desires of the governing class. The author of this article has recently drawn attention to the pressures which private legislation placed on the parliamentary agenda and the attempts by the government to control it. All of this supports Elton's contention that parliament, from the perspective of central government, was indeed a vital means of ensuring stability and channelling grievances.

However, few studies have viewed parliament from the perspective of the local communities and governing elites who sought parliamentary solutions to their problems or even parliamentary resolutions to their disputes with others. The major exception to this has been London. Helen Miller's seminal study of London and parliament in the reign of Henry VIII and Edwin Green's on the Vintners lobby, have been recently complemented by Ian Archer's on the London lobbies in Elizabeth's reign, Claude Blair's on the Armourers lobby, and my own study of the struggle between the Curriers and Cordwainers. These not only reveal the broader context of such disputes, but emphasize that parliament was only one of many arenas available to participants. This important point has also been stressed by Robert Tittler in his study of parliament as a “point of contact” for English towns.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Spring 1990 , pp. 39 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Versions of this paper have been read at the Tudor and Stuart seminar in the Institute of Historical Research, London, and at the Early Modern seminar at the University of Exeter. I would like to thank those attending for their helpful comments and the British Academy for financial support.

References

1 Elton, G. R., “Tudor Government: The Points of Contact,” Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1974, 1983), 3: 21.Google Scholar

2 Elton, G. R., “Parliament in the Sixteenth Century: Functions and Fortunes,” Studies, 3: 156–182Google Scholar, and The Parliament of England 1559–1581 (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar; Graves, M. A. R., The Tudor Parliaments, Crown, Lords and Commons, 1485–1603 (London, 1985)Google Scholar, and Elizabethan Parliaments (London, 1987)Google Scholar; Jones, N. L., Faith by Statute, Parliament and the Settlement of Religion, 1559 (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Loach, J., Parliament and the Crown in the Reign of Mary Tudor (Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar

3 Dean, D. M., “Public or Private? London, Leather and Legislation in Elizabethan England,” Historical Journal 31 (1988): 525–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Miller, H., “London and Parliament in the Reign of Henry VIII,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 35 (1962): 128–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, E., “The Vintner's Lobby, 1552–1568,” Guildhall Studies in History 1 (1974): 47–58Google Scholar; Archer, I., “The London Lobbies in the Later Sixteenth Century,” Historical Journal 31 (1988): 17–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blair, Claude, “The Armourers Bill of 1581: The Making of Arms and Armour in Sixteenth-Century London,” The Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 12 (1986): 20–53Google Scholar; Dean, “Public or Private?”

5 Tittler, R., “Elizabethan Towns and the ‘Points of Contact’: Parliament,” in Interest Groups and Legislative Activity in Elizabeth's Parliaments, ed. Jones, N. and Dean, D.Google Scholar, a special issue of Parliamentary History 8, 2 (November 1989)Google Scholar. On the ways localities used parliament see my own “Parliament and Locality,” in Dean, D. M. and Jones, N. L., eds., The Parliaments of Elizabethan England (Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar

6 Elton, G. R., “Piscatorial Politics in the Early Parliaments of Elizabeth I,” in Business Life and Public Policy: Essays in Honour of D. C. Coleman, ed. McKendrick, N. and Outhwaite, R. B. (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

7 British Library (hereafter cited as B.L.), Stowe MS. 362, fols. 17v–18. On Townshend see Hasler, P. W., ed., The House of Commons 1558–1603, 3 vols., (London, 1981), 3: 516–17.Google Scholar

8 I would like to thank Professor Robert Tittler for his advice on Yarmouth and it's records; Mr. Paul Rutledge of the Norfolk Record Office for sharing his extensive knowledge of them and his kindnesses in making them available; and the staffs of the Suffolk Record Office, Lowestoft; Kent Archives Office, Maidstone and the East Sussex Record Office, Lewes (especially Dr. Graham Mayhew) for their assistance.

9 The fullest study of the early modern fishing industry based at Yarmouth is Michell, A. R., “The Port and Town of Great Yarmouth and its economic and social relationships with its neighbours on both sides of the seas 1550–1714; an essay in the history of the North Sea economy,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1978)Google Scholar. There is a good exploratory study in Tittler, R., “The English Fishing Industry in the Sixteenth Century: The Case of Great Yarmouth,” Albion 9 (1977): 40–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The medieval industry is discussed in Saul, A., “The Herring Industry at Great Yarmouth, 1280–1400,” Norfolk Archaeology 38 (1981): 33–43Google Scholar. Yarmouth's Elizabethan ordinances regulating the trade are in their Book of Entries, Norfolk Record Office (hereafter cited as N.R.O.), Y C18/6, fols. 297v–306.

10 On the free fair see Henry Manship's history of Yarmouth of 1619, Palmer, C. J., ed., Henry Manship's The History of Great Yarmouth (Great Yarmouth, 1854), pp. 119ffGoogle Scholar, and Michell, , “The Port and Town of Great Yarmouth,” pp. 91–95Google Scholar. On Damet's authorship of Manship's works see Rutledge, P., “Thomas Damet and the Historiography of Great Yarmouth,” Norfolk Archaeology 33 (1963): 119–30, and 34 (1968): 332–34Google Scholar. A dispute between the bailiffs of the Cinque Ports and Yarmouth was settled in 1576, N.R.O., Book of Entries, Y C18/6, fols. 291–92, 312–15; Kent Archives Office, (hereafter cited as K.A.O.) NR/CPc 29, CP/Y5/2, 3, 4, 17, 18. Yarmouth thus paid £3 10s each year to the bailiffs of the Cinque Ports as their share of the toll, N.R.O., Yarmouth Audit Book, Y C27/1, e.g. fols. 104, 117, 206, 212.

11 For the appointment and payment of the Cinque Port bailiffs see K.A.O., CP/B2 (Black Book of the Cinque Ports), fols. 8v, 27v, 49v, 5O–51v, 55v, 56v, 57, 58v, 59, 60v, 61v, 77, 84, etc. Rulings on fees were made in 1580 and 1601, ibid., fols. 34, 105. For examples of individual port payments see K.A.O., SA/ZB4, 1575 (Sandwich); NR/FAC 32, 35, 38, 39 (New Romney); Dover Chamberlains Accounts 1558–80, fols. 154, 180, 350v, 371, 483; 1581–1603, fols. 123, 190v, 243, 369, 459; and East Sussex R.O., Rye MS. 60/9, fols. 161, 228; 60/10, fo. 65. By the 1580s each port was paying £4 11s 3d.

12 A “lewe” or “lewk” was the French term for the Latin leuca or English league. It was equivalent to 1500 paces in length. The act of 1357 is printed in Statutes of the Realm, 1, pp. 353–55Google Scholar, and in Swindon, Henry, The History and Antiquities of the Ancient Burgh of Great Yarmouth in the County of Norfolk (Norwich, 1772), pp. 211–13Google Scholar. Both translate “lewes” as “miles.”

13 What follows is based on Manship, , The History of Great Yarmouth, pp. 74–98Google Scholar, Swindon, , The History and Antiquities, pp. 373–76Google Scholar and Michell, , “The Port and Town of Great Yarmouth,” pp. 2–13Google Scholar. A useful map of the havens is printed in Ecclestone, A. W., Henry Manship's Great Yarmouth (Great Yarmouth, 1971), p. 74Google Scholar. The details of the financing of the haven are in N.R.O., Yarmouth Haven Accounts, Y C28/1.2. The work on Yarmouth's haven is also discussed in Williams, N. J., The Maritime Trade of the East Anglian Ports, 1550–90 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 251–55.Google Scholar

14 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Books, C19/1, fols. 2, 3v. In 1524 it was noted at a meeting of the general brotherhood of the Cinque Ports that strife had often occurred between Yarmouth and the Ports because fishermen of the Ports off loaded at Lowestoft and elsewhere along the coast. A fine of 20s. was to be imposed on any fishermen so doing, Hull, F., ed., A Calendar of the White and Black Books of the Cinque Ports, Kent Records, vol. 19 (London, 1966), p. 192Google Scholar. A guestling for both east and west ports was called to discuss the problem in 1526 and yet a former bailiff made another complaint in 1550, ibid., pp. 198, 245.

15 Michell, , “The Port and Town of Great Yarmouth,” p. 13Google Scholar. It was estimated that the town had spent £31,873 14s. 4d. on the haven between 1549 and 1597, N.R.O., Yarmouth Haven Accounts, Y C28/2, fo. a.

16 The historian of the dispute between Yarmouth and Lowestoft is well served by three local histories: Henry Manship's…History, pp. 164–70Google Scholar (with useful notes by Palmer, pp. 334–41); Swindon, , History and Antiquities, pp. 614–54Google Scholar; and Gillingwater, Edmund, An Historical Account of the Auncient Town of Lowestoft in the County of Suffolk (London, 1790), pp. 7–25, 114–245Google Scholar. The medieval history of the dispute is discussed in Saul, A., “Local Politics and the Good Parliament,” in Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History, ed. Pollard, A. (Gloucester, 1984), pp. 156–71.Google Scholar

17 Public Record Office (hereafter cited as P.R.O.), STAC 5, Y 2/11 (10 June 12 Elizabeth); Y 4/2 (no date). There had been an earlier Exchequer inquiry into Yarmouth's rights, P.R.O., E178/7054.

18 N.R.O., Yarmouth Book of Entries, Y C18/6, fo. 313.

19 Ibid., fols. 192–3v; Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, pp. 17–19Google Scholar. For the progress see Nichols, John, The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth 3 vols. (London, 1823), 2: 179 ff, 275Google Scholar. Local gentry knighted on this occasion included Robert Jermyn, Henry Woodhouse, and Bassingbourne Gawdy.

20 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/3, fols. 210, 210v, 211, 212, 212v, 213, 214, 218. Damet was bailiff in 1577, 1592, and 1602, Felton in 1576, 1585, and 1599, Harborne in 1574, N.R.O., Yarmouth Book of Oaths and Ordinances, Y C18/1, fols. 80, 82v, 83, 87, 90v, 94, 95v. Harborne had been one of those who had reached agreement with Sir Henry Jerningham in 1570, N.R.O., Yarmouth Book of Entries, Y C18/6, fols. 311v-312v. Damet was Yarmouth's member of parliament in 1584, 1586, 1593, and 1601; Felton in 1593 and 1597 and Harborne had been chosen in 1576 but was replaced by Edward Bacon probably due to the intervention of Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester and the town's High Steward, Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 1: 211–12Google Scholar. On Norton see Graves, M. A. R., “Thomas Norton the Parliament Man, An Elizabethan M.P.,” Historical Journal (1980): 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Norton also helped the town in 1581 when engaged in a suit against Hull over fishing, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fo. 26v.

21 Acts of the Privy Council (hereafter cited as A.P.C.), 11, pp. 52–54Google Scholar. There is a copy of the order in both town's records: Suffolk Record Office, Lowestoft (hereafter cited as S.R.O.), Lowestoft Town Book, fols. 38–38v; N.R.O., Yarmouth Book of Entries, Y C18/6, fo. 289. Yarmouth later sent gifts of fish to Leicester and Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsingham, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/3, fo. 222v.

22 K.A.O., CP/Y2/1, 2.

23 In September 1581 several persons were appointed to survey the landing of herrings at Gorleston; in October Felton was to try and obtain the agreement of the inhabitants of Blakeney and Wells and the corporation ordered the seizure of several Suffolk boats for landing herrings at Gorleston and one Richard Johnson of Gorleston was imprisoned by the Council; similar disputes arose with Lowestoft in 1586, 1591, and 1592, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Books, Y C19/4, fols. 31v, 32v, 33, 119v, 211, 226v; A.P.C., 13, pp. 235, 240, 291. One of the problems facing Yarmouth was that by the end of the sixteenth century the herring shoals were arriving two or even three weeks before the beginning of the free fair, Michell, , “The Port and Town of Great Yarmouth,” p. 51.Google Scholar

24 K.A.O. CP/Y2/5, 6. The 1594 report was printed by Rutton, W. L., “Great Yarmouth and the Cinque Ports,” Norfolk Archaeology 14 (1901): 70–98Google Scholar. See also Hull, , White and Black Books, p. 343Google Scholar where Lunsford and Mynge are appointed and one Richard Whyte is fined 40s. for selling herrings at Lowestoft. Earlier fines are noted on p. 262 (1561), and a list of the orders (dated 1570) which the bailiffs were to enforce also survives; it includes respecting Yarmouth's seven mile jurisdiction and prohibiting the selling of herrings in Kirkley Road, ibid., pp. 280–81. A copy of Yarmouth's letters patent of 1357 was made by a clerk of the Ports, ibid., p. 280.

25 This may well be the parchment Book of Charters which was collected by Thomas Damet and survives in the Yarmouth records, N.R.O., Y C18/4, fols. 1–68av. It contains all the relevant charters with marginal notes which especially point out the granting of admiralty jurisdiction to the town and the uniting of Kirkley Road to Yarmouth's liberties, see, for example, fols. 6, 7, 21, 24v, 68av, 69a.

26 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Books, Y C19/4, fols. 246, 247; Yarmouth Hutch Book, Y C20/1, fols. 4v–5. The documents included the records of fees taken from Kirkley Road, parliament rolls, charters, two parchment rolls of inquisitions and “six paper rolls of reasons and objections.” The hutch still survives in the Yarmouth Town Hall.

27 A.P.C., 25, p. 402; N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Books, Y C19/4, fo. 248v. Damet was ordered to go to London about the dispute on 21 October, accompanied by Felton if needs be, ibid., fo. 250. Both Queens Bench judges had East Anglian associations: Gawdy was a Norfolk man; Clench hailed from Essex and had been Recorder of Ipswich (his son married an Ipswich merchant's daughter, becoming sheriff of Suffolk in 1616 and junior knight of the shire in 1620), Stephen, L. and Lee, S., eds., Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 1921–1922), 4: 491; 7: 958–60.Google Scholar

28 Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, p. 136Google Scholar. Most of the ketchmen and pickers came from Colchester and their main market was London, Michell, , “The Port and Town of Great Yarmouth,” p. 62.Google Scholar

29 N.R.O., Y C36/7/13.

30 N.R.O., Y C36/7/14.

31 Ibid. Yarmouth's role in defeating Kett, is rehearsed in Henry Manship's…History, pp. 151–54.Google Scholar

32 N.R.O., Y C36/7/15.

33 S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fols. 13–13v. Edmonds was an assistant of the company while Bagshaw and Gardner were wardens in 1592, and all three were active in the Fishmonger's attempts to secure the repeal of the unfavorable act of 1581, Guildhall Library (hereafter cited as G.L.) MS. 5570/1, pp. 1, 3, 11, 14. George Buck's widow was awarded her husband's pension in May 1597, ibid., p. 135.

34 A.P.C., 25, pp. 402–03. There is a copy among the Yarmouth borough records, N.R.O., Y C36/7/2.

35 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fols. 256, 256v; A.P.C., 25, p. 404; Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, pp. 139–40Google Scholar. Edward Drew, sergeant at law from 1589, became Queen's Sergeant in 1596. Three years earlier he had been London's M.P. and was the City's Recorder, Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 2: 55–56.Google Scholar

36 A.P.C., 25, pp. 400–02. The composition of the commission reveals a mixing of the various groupings in county politics, see Smith, A. Hassell, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 157ffGoogle Scholar, and MacCulloch, D., Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500–1600 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 53ff, 239ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 N.R.O., Y C36/7/60.

38 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Books, Y C19/4, fo. 257.

39 Ibid., fo. 258.

40 A.P.C., 26, pp. 66–67. There is a copy in the Yarmouth records, N.R.O., Y C36/7/61. Dr. Mac-Culloch has found no record of a William Rous and suggests that this is a clerical error for Thomas Rous of Dennington, a J.P. from 1584 and a relative of SirHeveningham, Arthur, MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, p. 99Google Scholar and letter to author.

41 Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, p. 147.Google Scholar

42 S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fo. 68v. This is a transcript from the papers of John Wilde who died in 1738 and whose will, dated 22 July 1735, was of considerable importance to the town because it established its major school, fols. 83v–84v, 85ff. Wilde's great grandfather, William, was one of Lowestoft's representatives in the Council hearing of 1596.

43 A.P.C., 26, pp. 98–99.

44 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fo. 262. Unfortunately the most useful financial records which would have noted the details of payments related to disputes, legal cases and parliamentary activity were the books of “foreign expenses” submitted annually to the auditors which have since disappeared. The Audit Books do note totals and the “foreign expenses” of 1596 were the highest in the period: over £1200 compared to the usual payments of between £450 and £550, N.R.O., Yarmouth Audit Book, Y C27/1, fo. 189. In 1594 and 1597 a Mr. Maynard, possibly Lord Burghley's secretary Henry, received a counsellors fee of £6 13s. 4d., Ibid., fols. 163v, 178, 190, 199v, and this sum was not normally recorded in the standard list of counsellors fees, cf. fols. 8, 43, 54v, 79, 211v.

45 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fols. 266v, 267.

46 The petition, which rehearsed the events since the Council's order of 16 May, noted that Rous, “who was never acquainted with this business,” had been included at Felton's instigation in order to prevent the commissioners from carrying out their task, ibid., fo. 267v; YC36/7/4. On 2 November Damet withdrew “eight old Court Rolles” from the Town Hutch, N.R.O., YC20/1, fo. 5v. He was later awarded £11 13s. for his expenses, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C 19/4, fo. 269.

47 Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, pp. 148–49.Google Scholar

48 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fols. 275v, 276, 278v.

49 SirD'Ewes, Simond, The Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1682, repr. Shannon, Ireland, 1973), p. 562Google Scholar. All references to this work have been checked against the original manuscript, B.L., Harleian MS. 75.

50 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 562, 565–66.Google Scholar

51 On the Bacons see Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 1: 371–83.Google Scholar

52 On Wroth and Greville see ibid., 3: 658–63 and 2: 220–22. The Waldegraves were a prominent Suffolk family and Sir William was first married to the daughter of Sir Robert Jermyn and then to one of Sir Nicholas Bacon's daughters. Warner was related by marriage to Robert Wingfield; he was to be sheriff of Suffolk the following year and in 1592 had received a patent for curing fish. The Townshends were a prominent Norfolk family; Sir John's mother was the daughter of the leading household official, Sir Michael Stanhope, and he himself married a daughter of Sir Nathaniel Bacon. Henry Gawdy had been one of the commissioners appointed by the Council to measure Yarmouth's jurisdiction in 1595 and his uncle had been one of the judges ordered to consider the case (ibid., 2: 179–80; 3: 519–20, 564, 584–85).

53 See Corporation of London Record Office (hereafter cited as C.L.R.O.), Repertories 24, fo. 158—a committee established 15 November to investigate the fishmongers' role in the herring trade.

54 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, p. 567.Google Scholar

55 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Books, Y C19/4, fo. 279.

56 N.R.O., Y C36/7/10 (there is another copy of the bill and a breviate, Y C36/7/11,12); Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, pp. 149–50Google Scholar, errs in believing the bill became a statute as did Suckling, A., The History and Antiquities of the County of Suffolk (London, 1848), 2: 81Google Scholar and the Victoria County History of Suffolk (London, 1907, repr. 1975), 2: 294.Google Scholar

57 There were to be forty poles or perches to the furlong and with sixteen and a half feet to each pole or perch. “A brief of the aforesaid Liberties granted unto Yarmouth” noted that whereas Yarmouth wanted a measurement of sea miles (1.5 miles or 1500 paces with five feet to a pace), Lowestoft insisted on the use of land miles (8 furlongs to a mile or 1056 paces with five feet to a pace), S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fols. 47v–48.

58 N.R.O., Y C36/7/10. On the enacting clause see Elton, G. R., “Enacting Clauses and Legislative Initiative, 1559–1581,” Studies, 3: 142–55Google Scholar, and Dean, D. M., “Enacting Clauses and Legislative Initiative, 1584–1601,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 57 (November 1984): 140–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 586, 587.Google Scholar

60 Brograve had been involved in the Council's enquiry of 1596; the Duchy had many interests in Suffolk and Brograve himself had married into a good Suffolk family. George Waldegrave was also of good Suffolk stock and had married the daughter of John More, a prominent Ipswich merchant and bailiff; he had introduced a bill against the export of herrings. Henry Maynard, the Lord Treasurer's business secretary, would have been well acquainted with the dispute, and Greville, soon to be Treasurer of the Navy, had some interest in maritime affairs, Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 1: 487–88Google Scholar; 2: 220–22; 3: 39–41, 83–84, 563.

61 N.R.O., Y C36/7/5–9, 16–19. In the Lowestoft Town Book there are transcripts of documents concerning Yarmouth's liberties, copies of the medieval statutes and inquisitions and the like. Internal evidence proves that some of these were written up after 1610 and particularly in response to Yarmouth's charter granted in 1609, S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fols. 16v–54v; on dating see fols. 16v, 40v, 41, 54v.

62 N.R.O., Y C36/7/8 (there is another copy, C36/7/9). The MS is endorsed as “Resons agaynst the bille put in by Leistoffe into ye parliament house agenste yermouth liberties anno 39 Elizabeth.”

63 N.R.O., Y C36/7/7 (a rough draft), 6 (an incomplete copy in 16th century hand), 5 (an 18th century copy). Endorsed as “Allegacions on the behalf of Yermouth against Lowstoff at This Parliament holden anno 39 Regina Elizabeth.”

64 Ibid.

65 Lowestoft also prepared notes and submissions, S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fols. 17v–19, 37–37v, 43v–47 (histories of Yarmouth), fols. 19–33v, 34–37 (extracts of acts and charters), fo. 33v (two columns contrasting the positions of both sides), fols. 47v–48, 48–50v, 50v–54 (briefs of the dispute and of all relevant statutes). Other documents among these transcripts suggest that they were gathered around 1612 but, as with some of Yarmouth's records, these may well have also been used earlier.

66 N.R.O., Y C36/7/16 endorsed “1597. Reasons to mayntayne the towne of greate yermouth in the county of Norfolk and the Libertyes of the same.”

67 N.R.O., Y C36/7/18 endorsed “The reasons of Yermouth against certeyn Obieccions touching the decay of the trade of herrings”; Y C36/7/19 endorsed “Answeres unto severall allegacions made by Lowestoff agaynst Yermouth.”

68 Ibid., and N.R.O., Y C36/7/31 endorsed “Tempore Wakeman, Damett bailiffs.”

69 N.R.O., Y C36/7/5, fols. 19–25; Y C36/7/16. Note also “The Reasons whereon are grounded the humble suit of the Town of Yarmouth for the continuance of our ancient liberties against the molestation of Lowestoft,” Hatfield MSS., Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, MS. 141/182 (B.L. microfilm).

70 For example, N.R.O., Y C36/7/15 seems to have been originally endorsed “The replie of Lowestofte agenste Yermouth…1595,” but added later, in a different hand, is “before the Lords of the privie counsell” and “The bill of Lowestoft against Yermouth.…”

71 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, p. 591.Google Scholar

72 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fo. 279.

73 B.L., Stowe MS. 362, fols. 17v–18.

74 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, p. 594Google Scholar. On divisions see Dean, D. M., “Bills and Acts, 1584–1601,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1984), pp. 62–63.Google Scholar

75 Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, pp. 149–50.Google Scholar

76 See Elton, “Piscatorial Politics.” The Yarmouth records prove the vital role narrow self interest could play in formulating national legislation, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fols. 22–v, 26v, 32v.

77 Hartley, T. E., ed., Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I, Volume I 1558–1581 (Leicester, 1981), p. 363Google Scholar; Elton, , “Piscatorial Politics,” pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

78 Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 2: 226.Google Scholar

79 Lords Journal, 2: 34, 40, 43Google Scholar; Commons Journal, 1: 131, 134, 135Google Scholar; Hartley, , Parliaments of Elizabeth I, p. 542Google Scholar; Elton, , “Piscatorial Politics,” p. 11.Google Scholar

80 C.J., 1: 134; Elton, , “Piscatorial Politics,” pp. 13–14, 17Google Scholar; Statutes of the Realm, 4: 668–69.Google Scholar

81 Trinity College, Dublin, MS. 1045, fols. 73v, 86v, 90; D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 337, 340, 346, 351, 353, 361Google Scholar; L.J., 2: 97, 100, 101, 102, 103; P.R.O., S.P. 12/177/21; H.L.R.O., Original Acts, 27 Elizabeth, O.A. 15; Statutes of the Realm, 4: 723Google Scholar; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 1582–85, pp. 4–8.

82 B.L., Harleian MS. 7188, fols. 89, 99v–100; D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 412, 413, 414, 414–15Google Scholar; L.J., 2: 137 C.L.R.O., Rep. 21, fos. 393, 396v.

83 B.L., Harleian MS. 7188, fo. 100; L.J., 2: 137.

84 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 445, 445–46, 471, 487, 497, 500, 501, 504Google Scholar; B.L., Lansdowne MS. 55, fo. 185; L.J., 2: 179, 180, 183; H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 1592–93, pp. 96–98; C.L.R.O., Rep. 23, fo. 31. The Lord's committee list survives, P.R.O., S.P. 12/244/84. Several of the Fishmongers who petitioned the judges on Lowestoft's behalf in 1595 were active in drafting the 1593 bill, as G.L., MS. 5570/1, pp. 11, 13, 14. After the session the Fishmongers sought royal dispensation in which suit the Countess of Warwick helped, ibid., pp. 50, 51. See also the petition from fishermen in Norfolk, P.R.O., S.P. 12/244/112.

85 It is noted by Hayward Townshend in a list of abortive bills at the end of his journal, B.L., Stowe MS. 362, fo. 23.

86 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 562, 585, 588Google Scholar; Inner Temple, Petyt MS. 537, 6: 299, 300; B.L. Slowe MS. 362, fo. 14. The Fishmongers had petitioned for such a prohibition a few weeks earlier, as G.L., MS. 5570/1, p. 144 and had ordered a bill to be drawn, p. 145.

87 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 556, 557, 558, 561, 564, 564–65Google Scholar; L.J., 2: 201; Inner Temple, Pelyt MS. 537, 6: 280; P.R.O., S.P. 12/265/18 (a Lord's committee list).

88 H.L.R.O., Original Acts, 39 Elizabeth, O.A. 10; Statutes of the Realm. 4: 910–11Google Scholar. Only in 1601 was the clause pertaining to the Fishmonger's ordinances removed, D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, p. 677Google Scholar; Statutes of the Realm, 4: 974.Google Scholar

89 P.R.O., STAC 5, Y 1/14. The entry in N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/5, fo. 18 shows that Felton also accompanied the bailiffs.

90 P.R.O., STAC 5, Y 1/14.

91 N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/5, fols. 22v, 23v. A history of the dispute in the Lowestoft records notes that the Star Chamber case “was dismissed” and Yarmouth had to pay “Costs 20 marks,” S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fo. 40v. The case cost Lowestoft £34 13s 4d, ibid., fo. 68v.

92 N.R.O., Y C36/7/20.

93 On objections to this see S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fols. 38v–41, 41v–43.

94 N.R.O., Y C36/7/21, 27, 62; Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/5, fols. 76v, 77, 78; C.J., 1: 400.

95 N.R.O., Y C36/7/25 (29, 30 are copies), 27, 31, 34 (a copy of Y C36/7/8).

96 S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fo. 68v.

97 C.J., 1: 400, 410.

98 Ibid. The committee included all the burgesses of the port towns, members of the Privy Council, the knights and burgesses of Norfolk and Suffolk, the knights of Kent and Essex, the citizens of Norwich, the barons of the Cinque Ports and twenty others.

99 The violence arose once again when the Yarmouth men tried to collect anchorage in November 1659 and October 1660. Two of the Lowestoft men who in 1659 used “reviling words against them, calling them Rogues and Theives and the like and offering violence…” and who in 1660 “tooke away there colours and Rudder and cutt away ther riggen” threatening to set fire to their ship were John Wilde and one Ward, descendants of those who committed similar offences in 1600, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/7, fols. 338v–339, 339v, 364. Documents relating to the case are in N.R.O., Y C36/7/37–59.

100 In this part of the dispute Lord Chancellor Hyde, the High Steward, played an important role for Yarmouth and the town's freemen James Johnson and Richard Huntington were especially entrusted with the defense of the town's liberties, N.R.O., Hutch Book, Y C20/1, fols. 58v, 59, 59v. On 24 December 1660 Yarmouth set up a committee to examine all the records relating to the dispute following a Council order of 29 November and on 31 December several members of the corporation were sent to London to defend Yarmouth against Lowestoft's petition, N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/7, fols. 368v, 369–369v. The case was heard before the Council on 3 May 1661, before the House of Lords in June 1661 and the judges were consulted in January 1662, ibid., fols. 376, 377–378, 385v; N.R.O., Y C36/7/37–59.

101 The Yarmouth accounts show that in 1661 £20 each was paid to Johnson and Huntington “for their great payns and services done for the Towne about the Lowstoft differences” and that in 1662 the “foreign expenses” of the year included £124 6s. 6d. to Johnson “for moneys expended in the Lowstoft business,” N.R.O., Yarmouth Audit Book, Y C27/2 (unfoliated). The 1663 account reveals that the town paid Sir Thomas Medowe, one of their bailiffs in 1662–63, sheriff of Norfolk and their member of parliament in 1678, £35 for entertaining the Bishop of Norwich and the Speaker of the Commons, Sir Edward Turner and £27 for a tun of wine for Lord Chancellor Hyde. On Medowe see Henning, B., ed., The House of Commons, 3 vols. (London, 1983), 3: 46–47Google Scholar. Lowestoft was helped by Lord Cornwallis, Lord Devereux, Lord Hollis, and other notable peers and members of the Commons, S.R.O., Lowestoft Town Book, fo. 69.

102 Gillingwater, , Auncient Town of Lowestoft, pp. 153–245Google Scholar. However, in March 1664 the corporation noted that Lowestoft might petition Yarmouth on the “pretence of our disobeying the late order of the house of Lords aboute the ameasurement,” N.R.O., Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/8, fo. 37.

103 See, for example, N.R.O., Yarmouth Audit Book, Y C27/1, fols. 8, 43, 54v, 67, 79, 163v, 178, 190, 199v, 211v.

104 Leicester was credited with securing a licence for the town enabling it to export wheat and to use the profits for the haven; his servants received some payments as did his client, and one of Yarmouth's leading counsellors, William Grice, N.R.O., Yarmouth Audit Book, Y C27/1, fo. 56; Yarmouth Assembly Book, Y C19/4, fols. 76v–77.

105 Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 2: 148–51; 1: 609–10.Google Scholar

106 MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, p. 243.Google Scholar

107 Copinger, W. A., The Manors of Suffolk, vol. 5 (Manchester, 1909), p. 36Google Scholar; MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, p. 247Google Scholar. Dr. MacCulloch has informed me that John Wentworth was living at Somerleyton since 1584; it's previous owner was John Jerningham, son of George Jerningham, the eldest son of Sir John Jerningham. I am much indebted to Dr. MacCulloch for his assistance and suggestions for what follows.

108 MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, pp. 246–49Google Scholar. Soon after the 1597–98 parliament Coke married the daughter of SirCecil, Thomas, Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 1: 622–25Google Scholar; White, Stephen D., Sir Edward Coke and “The Grievances of the Commonwealth,” 1621–1628 (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 286–87Google Scholar. Yarmouth paid fees to Coke from 1587, N.R.O., Yarmouth Audit Book, Y C27/1, fols. 79, 163v, 178, 190, 211v. Coke was not a Privy Councillor until 1613.

109 MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, pp. 193ffGoogle Scholar, and Seaver, Paul S., “Community Control and Puritan Politics in Elizabethan Suffolk,” Albion 9 (1977): 297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that the Wentworths of the “Wentworth-Wingfield” group were the family of Lord Wentworth of Nettlestead; John Wentworth of Somerleyton, noted earlier, was the son of an Ipswich joiner.

110 MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, pp. 212–13Google Scholar and “Catholic and Puritan in Elizabethan Suffolk,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 72 (1981): 241–47Google Scholar. Sir Henry took possession of the manor of Lowestoft in 1543 and on his death in 1572 it passed to John Jerningham. It either then passed to the protestant John Wentworth (with the support of the Earl of Arundel) or Wentworth at least acted as Jerningham's steward, Copinger, , Manors of Suffolk, pp. 36, 55–56Google Scholar; MacCulloch, , “Catholic and Puritan,” p. 244Google Scholar and letter to author.

111 Thomas Seckford (d. 1587) was one of the Masters of Requests and Henry, a Groom of the Privy Chamber, MacCulloch, , Suffolk and the Tudors, pp. 212–15, 242, 251–53Google Scholar; “Catholic and Puritan,” pp. 245–47; Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 3: 362–64Google Scholar. Other Jerningham tenants were Henry Gunvyle and William French, both petitioner in the 1570s. Gunvyle was a member of a family who had owned the Bacon manor in Gorleston until 1581 when it passed to Richard Ward, husband of Ann Gunvyle. Wards were involved in both the 1596 petition and the 1600 affray on the Kirkley Road, Suckling, , Antiquities of Suffolk, 1: 362–63Google Scholar. French was Constable of the half-hundred of Lothingland and a prominent Catholic.

112 These probably included, besides the knights of the shire (Sir William Waldegrave and Henry Warner) and the Sudbury M.P. (George Waldegrave), Francis Johnson (one of Aldeburgh's few townsman M.P.'s); Clipsby Gawdy (a Coke candidate for Dunwich); Michael Stanhope (Ipswich); the Wingfield relatives Thomas Rivett (Orford) and Edward Honing (Eye); Francis Hervey (Aldeburgh, whose father was an auditor in the Duchy); and John Hare (M.P. for Horsham and a clerk in the Court of Wards).

113 See Hasler, , The House of Commons 1558–1603, 1: 207–10Google Scholar and Smith, Hassell, County and Court, pp. 157ffGoogle Scholar. Heveningham, on the other hand, was closely associated with the conservatives in eastern Suffolk, MacCulloch, , “Catholics and Puritans,” p. 255.Google Scholar

114 By October 1597 the Fishmongers were seriously worried about the scarcity of herrings (as G.L., MS. 5570/1, p. 141) and were supported by the Lord Mayor in obtaining a Privy Council order for an investigation into supplies. Unfortunately, little evidence survives for the support of other towns for either side. The Aldeburgh Chamberlains Accounts for 1593–1623 are missing and no Assembly Books for the period survive. Only the election of the burgesses is noted in the Orford Assembly Book, S.R.O., Ipswich, EE5/2/2, fo. 67. The Ipswich Chamberlains Accounts for 1594–98 are lost but the Assembly Book reveals that in 1597 the town decided that “none shalbe chosen to be any burgess to serve at the next parliament excepte he be a freman of this towne of Ipswiche and Dwellinge with the sayd towne” an order which led to some difficulties with the request of the earl of Essex for a nomination, S.R.O., Ipswich, C6/1/3, fols. 70v, 73, 79v, 80, 80v, 83. Sir William Waldegrave wrote to the town and secured their support for his election as one of the knights of the shire, ibid., fo. 80. The town regularly gave gifts of wine to the two knights, ibid., fo. 80v; Chamberlains Accounts, C9/11/22 (1589).

115 D'Ewes, , Journals of all the Parliaments, pp. 665–66Google Scholar. See the neglected article by Hill, Lamar M., “Continuity and Discontinuity: Professor Neale and the Two Worlds of Elizabethan Government,” Albion 9 (1977): 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar