Great Yarmouth

Twenty miles east of Norwich, Yarmouth was an important trading post and the centre of a vast fishing trade based on herring. Writing during the reign of James I, the former town clerk, Henry Manship, claimed that it had 1,200 householders. Manship, Gt. Yarmouth, 24. Manship’s local pride prompted him to write a history of the town, which repeatedly stressed its natural and man-made advantages.

O! my most sweet beloved native town of Yarmouth! I do rejoice from the bottom of my heart that thou hast such an excellent spacious haven, wherein so many ships may so safely harbour; and hast so strong a navy; and art so strong a town; so armed with walls, towers, citadels and forts, adjoining upon the sea: thou art not great in quantity, but strong and valorous; small in compass, yet (blessed be God) in great security. Manship, Gt. Yarmouth, 102.

But other views of its economic conditions were possible. In appealing to the privy council in 1634 for a reduction in the town’s Ship Money contribution, the corporation claimed, not entirely plausibly, that their ‘town consisteth of many thousands of poor fishermen, where though there be good quantities of fish, yet the value thereof remains not there, but is dispersed throughout the whole kingdom’. H. Swinden, Hist. and Antiquities of the Ancient Burgh of Gt. Yarmouth (Norwich, 1772), 531n.

Due to the town’s proximity to the Low Countries, puritanism and separatism flourished during the 1620s and 1630s, and in 1643 an Independent congregation was established in the town under William Bridge. At the Restoration Sir William Denny, who hoped to be appointed as the town’s governor, would claim that the town had been ‘a port to let in much schism and faction which to this day doth extremely infect and infest the whole country round about’. CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 88; Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 9. These religious tensions would be especially evident during the 1654 election.

A new charter in 1608 remodelled the corporation to consist of two bailiffs who acted as returning officers, 24 alderman and 48 burgesses or common councilmen, assisted by several municipal officers, including a high steward and a recorder. C.J. Palmer, Hist. of Gt. Yarmouth (Gt. Yarmouth, 1856), 31-6. The Cinque Port bailiffs had for centuries exercised a concurrent jurisdiction, making an annual visit to the town during the fish fair when they had precedency with the town’s bailiffs. Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 67. Only in 1656 were proposals to end this practice put forward by the Cinque Port barons. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 229. Throughout the period the franchise of this populous port was limited to the corporation, although the freemen, supported by a small minority of the governing body, made a separate return in 1654. Indentures were exchanged between the sheriff and the bailiffs, aldermen and common councilmen.

Soon after the announcement that Parliament was to be called in 1640, both the high steward, the 4th earl of Dorset (Sir Edward Sackville†) and the lord high admiral, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, were quick to recommend their candidates to the corporation. In a letter of 10 December 1639, Dorset proposed the poet Sir John Suckling as a ‘very noble gent and of able parts, who is both ready and willing to serve the town, as well out of Parliament as in Parliament’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 450v; Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 204. Writing on the same day Northumberland requested the nomination to one seat, recommending the admiralty judge, Sir Henry Marten, who had sat elsewhere in the three preceding Parliaments. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 450v; Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 205. To both requests the corporation replied in a tone of respectful independence which was careful to emphasize the popular nature of the election. As they explained to Dorset, they were willing to propose Suckling ‘amongst such others of our own as are to stand for it, to the general vote of the assembly, leaving the success to divine providence, by which all the actions of men are governed’. Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 205.

Dorset failed to take the hint and on 27 February renewed his request for ‘your countryman’ Suckling. Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 206. But at the election held on 19 March, ‘the greater part of the electors thought it more convenient to have two of our own members, resident and dwelling amongst us’, and so chose Edward Owner*, a prosperous townsman who had represented the borough in 1621 and 1625, and the recorder Miles Corbett*, one of the Members in 1628. Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 207; Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 455v. Both had been prominent in opposing royal and ecclesiastical interference in the town during the 1630s. Fifty-seven members of the corporation signed the indenture. C219/42, pt. 1B, f. 156. On 5 April, unaware of the impending dissolution, the corporation set up a committee to prepare grievances for presentation to Parliament. These included ‘the great imposition on salt, the exacting of double composition [i.e. purveyance] for fish, the want of preaching and other religious exercises which this town formerly enjoyed but cannot now have’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 460v.

No evidence survives to indicate interference in the autumn election when Corbett and Owner were re-elected, but with Corbett taking first place. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 469. On 23 October, eight days after the election, a committee was appointed to prepare a statement of grievances and to appoint a spokesman ‘to attend the burgesses and execute such petitions and complaints as shall be thought fit to be put to the Parliament for the town’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 470v. One complaint they soon submitted was against the town preacher, the Laudian Matthew Brooke. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 474. The corporation subsequently maintained close links with their MPs and the assembly book frequently mentions matters, mainly concerning the fishing trade, which they wanted brought to the attention of their representatives. In November 1641 Corbett was awarded a ‘free benevolence’ of £20 for his great pains on the town’s behalf at Westminster. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 495. Both Members were paid regularly, although Owner, as a member of the corporation received ‘wages’, while payments to Corbett were always referred to as ‘gratuities’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 494; Y/C 19/7, ff. 9, 22v, 23, 27, 65v, 73v, 83, 99v, 174. In April 1645 it was agreed to raise these sums by setting a rate on the inhabitants. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 65v, 73v.

On 9 July 1642 the town assembly met to consider the two most recent rival declarations from the king and Parliament and agreed that they preferred the latter, ‘conceiving that to be the most fit way to preserve the public peace both for king and kingdom’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 512v. They would remain solidly behind Parliament throughout the ensuing civil war, in which the town avoided any actual fighting. The royalist attempt to seize nearby Lowestoft in March 1643 was quickly suppressed. But no one doubted the town’s strategic significance. People and goods passing through the port were a constant source of suspicion and officials vigilantly monitored all shipping along the coast. Thus in February 1643 the Commons was first alerted to the fact that Queen Henrietta Maria was trying to land on the east coast by a letter from the Great Yarmouth bailiffs. CJ ii. 963b; Add. 31116, pp. 49-50.

As early as August 1642 the two bailiffs were granted powers by Parliament to raise the trained bands and to fortify the town. CJ ii. 734b, 735a; LJ v. 319b-320a; HMC 9th Rep. 312. Corbett delivered this in person to the corporation. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/6, f. 516. A year later the major-general of the Eastern Association, the 2nd earl of Manchester (Sir Edward Montagu†), authorised them to raise a company of foot numbering 120 men. HMC 9th Rep. 313. These were powers that the corporation carefully protected. In December 1643 Manchester attempted to appoint Francis Russell* as the town’s military governor. The corporation objected that his proposed powers were excessive, and the earl was forced to withdraw the appointment. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 28, 30, 31, 32; HMC 9th Rep. 313, 320; Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 188-9. They then headed off the proposal that Charles Fleetwood* be appointed instead. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 39; HMC Var. iv. 297; Holmes, Eastern Assoc. 189. The biggest military scare came during the second civil war. In late May 1648 six navy ships went over to the royalist side, allowing the prince of Wales to appear off the coast of Great Yarmouth with them in late July and provoking a brief panic that a royalist invasion force was about to land there. HMC 9th Rep. i. 313-14; LJ x. 399a-400a; CJ v. 648b, 656b.

At least some members of the corporation welcomed the creation of the republic. In the spring of 1650 the corporation petitioned the Rump in the hope of obtaining a reduction in the town’s assessment contributions. They also suggested that lead and other materials from the now-redundant Norwich Cathedral could be granted to them to fund the construction of a workhouse. They did not stint on the flattery.

… we cannot but in all humility and thankfulness acknowledge the great and unspeakable goodness of God in raising this honourable House to repair the breaches of many generations and to recover our almost lost liberties and religion out of the hands of those that studied nothing more than to enslave both the souls and bodies of the whole nation.

They went on to suggest that MPs were ‘so many choice arrows’ with which God would ‘smite through the hearts and loins of His and His people’s enemies’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 166; HMC 9th Rep. i. 320. Despite all this fawning, the petition was unsuccessful.

The death of Owner (who had not sat in the Rump) in August 1650 and Corbett’s departure for Ireland as one of the parliamentary commissioners in January 1651 left the town unrepresented at Westminster. In April 1652 the corporation, anxious to have a replacement for Owner ‘to agitate for them in the public affairs of the town’, resolved to petition for a new writ. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 218. However, no by-election was called. One piece of business favoured by the corporation that an MP at Westminster might have promoted was legislation for the maintenance of the local ministers. By June 1651 the corporation had a draft bill, prepared by Charles George Cock*, their deputy recorder, who was performing Corbett’s duties in his absence. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 200v, 205, 205v. On 24 July Parliament agreed to consider it the following week, but nothing more was heard of it during this Parliament. CJ vi. 609a.

By 1654 the government of the town was firmly in the hands of those corporation members who belonged to the town’s Independent church, but the election to the first protectorate Parliament exposed deep divisions on the corporation, with a minority advocating the right of the freemen to participate in the election. In anticipation of the election, the corporation appointed the lord protector’s younger son, Henry Cromwell*, as its new high steward on 1 June. An invitation was extended to him to visit the town. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 245. However, he does not seem to have taken the opportunity to try to influence the subsequent election.

Under the terms of the precept received from the sheriff on 15 June, the bailiffs were required to proclaim the election on the next market day. Such an injunction was declared an infringement of the ancient privileges of the governing body whereby the right of election was confined to the aldermen and common councilmen assembled in common council. Following a division in which 12 aldermen and 22 councilmen voted in favour, and three councilmen against, it was resolved that the bailiffs should not proclaim the election ‘until further advice’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 246. On 21 June, following the presentation a petition from the corporation, delivered by Thomas Bendish and Thomas Dunne*, both prominent corporation Independents, the protector’s council resolved that the election would be held according to the 1653 Instrument of Government. SP25/75, p. 387.

At a stormy meeting on 5 July, the precept was read, but after some of the freemen forced their way in, the proceedings were adjourned. When they reassembled the next day William Goffe* and Thomas Dunne were elected by 37 aldermen and common councilmen. C219/44, pt. 2, Gt. Yarmouth indenture, 6 July 1654; Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 246v-247v; HMC 9th Rep. i. 320. Goffe, who had risen to become a colonel in the army and who had signed Charles I’s death warrant, was an outsider but his regiment may have been based locally, as some of them had served as marines with the fleet during the recently concluded Anglo-Dutch war. Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 331. Another indirect connection may have been via Bridge and the local Independents, including Dunne. Goffe was immediately admitted a freeman and invited to visit the town to take the oath. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 247. However, the senior bailiff, Nathaniel Ashby, refused to sign the return (which was made in the name of the burgesses and inhabitants) and joining himself with ‘the generality of the freemen and freeholders of the town’ proceeded to elect two unidentified Members, making a separate return to the sheriff. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 247v, 255. The majority of the corporation, furious at this violation of their privileges, immediately resolved to despatch three representatives to London to seek redress from the protector. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 247v.

Goffe signified his willingness to serve the town in Parliament shortly afterwards, whereupon a congratulatory letter was sent to him, and another to John Disbrowe*, informing him ‘that town takes notice of his respects to this house in not joining with the adverse party in their election of burgesses for Parliament contrary to ancient custom and privileges of this assembly’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 247v As Disbrowe, a former governor of the town, was one of the generals-at-sea, he was just the type of grandee who might have taken an interest in the election and whom the corporation would have wished to cultivate, but it seems that he had not interfered. On 3 August the corporation petitioned the council to uphold their privileges, fearful of the consequence for the future peace and good government of the town, and received an assurance from the president, Henry Lawrence I*, that, although the matter was proper for Parliament to determine, the council would not fail in their pleas ‘to preserve their just right and the interest of honest men’. CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 284-5; SP25/75, p. 468.

The committee for privileges considered the case on 6 September. Burton’s Diary, i. p. xxiv. On 21 September the Commons voted to approve its report declaring the right of election to be ‘in the bailiffs, aldermen, burgesses and commonalty’. Moreover, ‘upon perusal of the patents’, the committee had decided that the ‘commonalty’ meant ‘the common council assembled’. The Commons also confirmed that and Goffe and Dunne were declared elected. CJ vii. 369a-b. Ashby was ordered to attend the House, which he did on 27 September, in order to sign and affix the town seal to the indenture in their favour. CJ vii. 369b, 371a.

Following the dissolution both MPs signed a letter to the corporation requesting further instructions; both received its thanks. In addition Goffe received plate valued at £10 and Dunne later received wages based on a daily allowance of 6s 8d. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 254v, 258v. On 7 February the corporation recorded in their minutes that Ashby had been dismissed as an alderman and that Parliament had upheld their rights to elect the MPs. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 255. Ashby subsequently took legal action over his dismissal and seven months later the corporation was forced to re-admit him. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 256v, 264.

The assembly took no chances with the 1656 election. The precept was received on 24 July but it was agreed to defer publication of the day of election until the next assembly. The matter was not raised at the meeting on 8 August, but on 13 August the bailiffs announced that the election would be held two days later. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 277v, 278v. The assembly accordingly met in the Guildhall on 15 August and elected the admiralty judge, Charles George Cock*, who had replaced Corbett as recorder the previous September, and William Burton*, a prosperous merchant and alderman who was both an admiralty commissioner and the town’s leading naval supplier. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 279. Dunne may not have been available, because he was now busy running the Register Office, which had been set up in London to monitor the movements of royalists. Immediately afterwards Burton declared his willingness to serve without payment. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 279. Burton would later claim that Bendish, who was now one of the bailiffs, had opposed his election as he hoped to gain the seat for himself. CSP Dom. 1657-8, pp. 67-8.

On 29 August the assembly appointed a committee ‘to advise and consider of the town’s affairs and what is needful to be propounded on the town’s behalf to their burgesses that they may have instructions in due time’. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 280. These matters included what was probably the revival of the 1651 bill for the maintenance of the town’s ministers. Cock presumably took the lead on this. The new bill was introduced to the Commons on 4 November 1656 and had completed its passage by 1 December. It received the protector’s assent at the end of the session in June 1657. CJ vii. 449b, 450a, 453b, 455a, 458a, 462a, 552b. Less successful was a bill which would have permitted the corporation to sell land to pay for repairs to the pier. This was also introduced in early November 1656 but proceeded no further. CJ vii. 452a. On 9 January 1657 another committee was appointed to prepare a petition to Parliament about the ‘decay of annual revenues’ brought about by the wars against Spain and the Dutch. Burton was put in charge of presenting it, although there is no record of its presentation. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 285. In preparation for the second session, a committee was appointed to prepare instructions for Burton, particularly to rectify the wording of the Act enabling the town to transport fish in foreign bottoms, the provision of a convoy for the North Sea fishermen and the proposals to end the jurisdiction by the Cinque Port bailiffs. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 300.

In late 1658 the corporation presented a loyal address to the new lord protector, Richard Cromwell*, on his succession. CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 235; Swinden, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 578-9n. On the evidence of the assembly book the election to the third protectorate Parliament proceeded uneventfully. Immediately after the reading of the precept of 5 January 1659, Cock was unanimously elected in first place ‘by a general vote’ of the assembly. Burton ‘by the major vote’ was chosen for the second place. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, ff. 318-318v. The indenture was signed by the bailiffs, alderman and common councilmen. C219/47, Gt. Yarmouth indenture, 5 Jan. 1659; Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 319v. As usual, a committee was appointed on 17 January to draw up instructions for the MPs. Norf. RO, Y/C 19/7, f. 320.

When the Rump resumed its sittings in May 1659, Corbett was still in Ireland and so was unable to take his seat as MP for Great Yarmouth once again. Moreover, by the time he reached England in January 1660, the Rump had begun to prepare impeachments against him and the other Irish commissioners. Nonetheless, he still had friends among the republican hardliners on the Great Yarmouth corporation, who quixotically supported him as a candidate in the elections to the Convention the following April. This was their last attempt to assert their influence before they were dismissed from the corporation. HP Commons 1660-1690. In January 1661 the purged corporation removed Henry Cromwell as high steward and ordered that the entries recording his appointment and the address to Richard Cromwell should be expunged from the corporation minutes. (Sir) Edward Hyde* was then appointed as the new high steward. Swinden, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth, 582-4.