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. LOWESTOFT APPEALS TO THE KING AGAINST YARMOUTH. Impoverished as the merchants were by their losses from the fire, and the expense of rebuilding their houses and fish-houses, they bravely determined to resist the pretensions of Yarmouth by another appeal to the governing powers of the country, and at once took steps to gain the support and co-operation of other towns interested in the herring trade. Meanwhile events had been taking place of much more importance to the country than the quarrel between Lowestoft and Yarmouth. The Cromwellian rule had come to an end, and a King again sat on the throne of England. Yarmouth had lost the claim to the favour of the crown which her ancestors had enjoyed in the days of the Edwards. She must secure the favour of the new King by other means. Before his landing, the Burgesses had met and determined that it was “a convenient season” to send an address to their King with the offer of a little pecuniary assistance. In August, 1660, they submitted a most loyal address to their “dread sovereign” congratulating him upon his being restored to his rights and possessions, etc., and acknowledging in all humility their obligation to pay the old fee-farm rent (which they had already paid to Cromwell by composition), and tendering him £266 13. 4. in cash for arrears. In the following December they sent him a further present of £500. {95} The Lowestoft people had no reason to doubt the good will of Charles, and they commenced their suit by a petition to the King himself complaining of the conduct of the Yarmouth bailiffs, and supporting it by numerous petitions to the House of Lords, the Judges, the Fishmonger’s Company, and many great men of the day. This Petition to the King was very favourably received, as appears from the following reply from His Majesty, dated 17th October, 1660, at the court of Whitehall,