themselves to his interests, and those of such of his successors as continued to protect and notice them, which the monarchs on their parts naturally continued to do, well knowing their importance in establishing commerce, and their ability to protect the same from foreign enemies.

Notwithstanding the mutual co-operation subsisting between this burgh and the Cinque Ports, in state affairs, much dissatisfaction prevailed between them, in the recognition of their private interests, chiefly respecting the liberties the latter exercised within the jurisdiction of the former, and their interference with the regulations of the free fair. Several inquisitions were taken, by royal authority, for enquiring into, and redressing the dispute so often breaking out; but of so little avail were they, that in the 25th year of Edward I., an open rupture is recorded by Hollingshed, who says "that the King passing into Flanders, to the assistance of the Earl thereof, against the King of Francé, being no sooner on land, but the men of the Ports, and those of Yarmouth, through an old grudge long depending between them, fell together upon the sea, and fought with such fury, that notwithstanding the King's commandment to the contrary, twenty-five ships of Yarmouth and their partakers were burnt." In this desperate encounter, many Yarmouth men were killed, and goods to the value of £15,356 were taken and destroyed; but we are told by Manship, (an ancient Yarmouth historian) that "a grievous requital was not long after made, by the men of this burgh, against

the Portsmen." These disagreements continued until Queen Elizabeth adjusted matters, to the satisfaction of both parties, after a quarrel of long duration, much bloodshed, and great loss of property.

In the same King Edward's reign, Yarmouth had the appellation of Great added to it, to distinguish it from Little Yarmouth in Suffolk: hence in all subsequent charters, and other public instruments, it is written Magna Jernemutha.

In the reign of Edward III., a new controversy arose, between the burgh and the inhabitants of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, who were tenants of John De Bretaigne, Earl of Richmond, and lord of the half hundred of Lothingland. This dispute, similar to that with Fitz Osbert, originated in the haven, viz., in the Earl's exacting tolls from ships discharging their cargoes at Gorleston, and landing provisions there, thus depriving Yarmouth of the accustomed duties payable thereon.

The Earl laid claim to one half of the haven, and the liberty of holding a fair and market, as well as to traffic with foreign vessels on their arrival in the river, wholly independent of the burgesses, and in direct opposition to their charter of Henry III., which decreed to the contrary. He contended that the half hundred of Lothingland was an ancient demesne of the crown, and therefore it was lawful for him to traffic there, as his predecessors had done, by ancient prescription and possession, from the time of Canute and King Harold.

The burgesses, on the other hand, appealed to their several grants and charters, and insisted upon compliance with the ordinances contained therein, which the Earl as resolutely resisted. Both parties: were in consequence ordered to exhibit their pretensions before the Bishop of Winchester, then Lord Chancellor of England, who, by command. of the King, made a personal visit to Yarmouth, assisted by some other Lords, and inspected the premises; when after an impartial hearing, judgement was given against the Earl and his tenants, and the rights of the adverse party were fully established. The King confirmed the decision by a new charter, in the sixth year of his reign, called the charter of confirmation. Thus were these disputes ended for a time, until the twelfth of Elizabeth, when they were renewed about a small piece of land, on the south side of the haven's mouth; it was however, happily compromised; and as a part of the conditions, the foot-ferry across the Yare was. ceded to the manor of Gorleston, to which it at present remains annexed.

Notwithstanding the frequent accommodations that had taken place, the spirit of party dissatisfaction at times manifested itself, and occasioned much inconvenience to persons concerned, when in the 16th and 17th years of Charles II., to prevent a renewal of them at any time hereafter, an act was passed for the settlement of all differences; and in the 20th year of the same monarch, the town of Little Yarmouth, which had been united to Gorleston, in the 36th year of Henry VIII., was, by the the King's letters patent, finally incorporated with the burgh.

Hitherto the history of Yarmouth has presented us with nothing but a continued chain of litigation and difficulty; for they were not only involved in the perpetual disputes before mentioned, but also with the people of the adjoining village of Caister. Of the two havens, communicating with the ocean, in the reign of Edward the Confessor, that to the north, flowing between Yarmouth and Caister, was called the Cocklewater, or Grub's haven; and for a series of years, formed the boundary between the two places, until choaking up, and in the end ceasing entirely to flow, the boundary, in the course of time, was lost; so that in after ages a question presented itself, as to the exact quantity of land belonging to the two places, upon the pas turage of which they could not agree. This forget fulness of the land-mark might, in a great measure, be ascribed to the carelessness of the bailiffs, who were frequently amerced for neglecting annually to pérambulate the town limits, the omission of which gave to the people of Caister an opportunity to enter upon their property, and invade their rights, of which we may easily apprehend they were not slow in availing themselves. The first open rupturė was in the 28th of Edward I., when the townsmen were attached to answer Hugh Bardolf, lord of one the manors of Caister, for having taken away his goods, to the value of £40, &c. The defendants, however, contended, that the alleged trespass was committed within the limits of Yarmouth; and this answer the plaintiffs not being able fully to disprove, the dispute was, at that period, amicably adjusted: but new matter of contention was shortly after

wards afforded, originating in the men of Caister carrying off and impounding cattle from Yarmouth, and other petty trespasses, which the latter retaliated upon them by fines. In the 15th year of Henry VIII., a more serious depredation was committed, for a large party from Caister arming themselves, assembled riotously upon the land in dispute, and dispossessed the bailiffs of the whole of the premises, consisting of about 400 acres, between the Cocklewater and the Stone cross: this violence was still further augmented, by a multitude of persons carrying off large quantities of wreck, from within the same limits, in little more than a month afterwards. Acts of such open hostility called for immediate redress, and the attention of the magistrates was of course directed towards it. Presentments were made of these trespasses, and other means taken to prevent them, but proving ineffectual, complaint was made to the Duke of Norfolk, then surveying the fortifications at Yarmouth, who promised to intercede with his Majesty in their behalf, and have the ground of contention properly enquired into. A commission was granted, in the 37th of Henry VIII., for that purpose, and in the following year it was decided between the burgesses of Yarmouth, and Sir William Paston, on the part of Caister, that a ditch should be thrown out in the middle, between the two places, the east part of which was to be maintained by the burgesses, and the west by Sir William; a cross was then marked on each side of the fence, and ordered to be kept open, and rails were erected, which continued until the present causeway was made by act of parliament, in 1712.