When Julius Cæsar invaded the island, B.C. 55, he found seventeen tribes of the ancient Britons or Celts, and the Iceni, inhabiting this eastern district. They belonged to a very old family of mankind, of whose beginning there is no record, and their end is still more remote in the future. They first planted this island and gave to the seas, rivers, lakes, and mountains names which are poems, imitating the pure voices of nature. Julius Cæsar only made an inroad into the country through a part of Kent, and gained no permanent hold of the island. The Rev. Scott F. Surtees, in a recent work, maintains (and some persons think successfully) that Julius Cæsar effected his first landing on the coast of Norfolk.
The Romans, under Claudius, landed on the eastern coast; and established his power in this part of the country. He built strongholds at Gorleston and camps at Caister, near the present site of Yarmouth, and on the opposite shore at Burgh Castle, where extensive ruins yet remain. Advancing up the arm of the sea, the Romans built a camp at Reedham; and sailing yet higher up they built camps on the southern side of Norwich, at Caistor and Tasburgh. Historians for a long time believed that Caistor was the Venta Icenorum of the Romans, and preserved a very ancient tradition, that Norwich was built of Caistor stone out of the ruins of the Roman camp.
The late Hudson Gurney, Esq., collected ample materials for a full history of Norwich, but the only result of his researches seems to have been a letter to the late Dawson Turner, Esq., on the question of the Venta Icenorum mentioned by the Roman writers, whether it was Elmham, as Blomefield supposed, or Caistor, as later historians believed, or Norwich, as most antiquarians now think. The question is of some importance as regards the antiquity of the city; for supposing it to have been the Venta Icenorum of the Romans, with all the Roman roads radiating from it, the Venta must have been a large place. Main roads were of course made for traffic and for means of communication, which imply the existence of many people living in settled habitations.
Main roads prove a certain advance in civilization; but the question is, whether the Romans really made all the roads attributed to them, in Norfolk and Suffolk, during the four hundred years of their occupation. Main roads might have radiated from Caistor originally, and afterwards might have been diverted to Norwich.
Mr. Hudson Gurney adduced some proofs that Norwich and not Caistor was the Venta Icenorum. He says—
“The first question to examine, on the view of Norwich, Norwich Castle, and the Roman Camp at Caistor, may be, whether Norwich or Caistor be the ‘Venta Icenorum’ of the Romans; Norwich standing on the Wensum, and Caistor on the Taes, on the opposite side of what was the great estuary.”
“To begin, then, with Camden. In his accounts of Norwich and of Caistor he falls into the most extraordinary errors, confounding the courses of the three rivers, the Wensum, the Taes, and the Yare. He places Norwich upon the Yare instead of the Wensum, and gives the Wensum the course of the Taes as ‘flowing from the south;’ and still more strangely, as a king-at-arms, he attributes the erection of the present Castle of Norwich to Hugh Bygod, ‘from the lions salient carved in stone on it, which were the old arms of the Bygods on their seals, though one of them bore a cross for his seal.’”
Mr. Hudson Gurney remarks on this error—
“Now the lions were two lions passant regardant, very rudely carved, one on each side of the arch of the great entrance, and the Bygods, whose original arms were or, a cross gules, never bore the lion till assumed by Roger Bygod in the reign of Henry III., who took the arms of his mother, the heiress of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, in whose light he became Earl Marshal of England.”
Thus Camden is disposed of, and other authorities are quoted in the letter in favour of Norwich being the Venta Icenorum.
“Horsley, in his Britannia Romani, states that Venta was the capital of the Iceni, situated on the Wentfar, and thence deriving its name; and misled by and quoting Camden, he places Venta at Caistor.”
“King, who, born in Norwich, might have been supposed to have been better informed, in his Munimenta Antiqua follows Camden, and turns the Taes into the Wensum; and in his paper in the fourth volume of the Archæologia, he pronounces the existing Castle of Norwich to be ‘the very tower which was erected about the time of King Canute.’”
Mr. Hudson Gurney, after setting aside Wilkins as an authority, proceeds—
“In 1834, I went over the Camp at Caistor and the country adjacent, with Colonel Leake, who may be considered the greatest living authority for the sites of ancient cities and fortified camps, and he at once said that he was convinced that Norwich was the Venta Icenorum, and capital of the Iceni, and Caistor the fortified camp planted by the Romans over against it, on the other side of the estuary, to bridle, as was their custom, a hostile population.”
After quoting a letter to the same effect, Mr. Hudson Gurney continues—
“In the Roman Itineraries you have three Ventas; Venta Bulgarum, Winchester; Venta Silurum, Caer Went, in Monmouthshire; and Venta Icenorum; and of these Ventas, the confusion between Winchester and the Venta Icenorum seems to have been begun very early, both with the chroniclers and romancers, probably from the one having retained the rudiments of the name, and the other becoming known as Northwic.”
“Sir Francis Palgrave, in the researches which he has made for his forthcoming history of ‘England under the Normans,’ being led to the examination of all contemporary authors, in order to clear up points which he found otherwise inexplicable, has referred me to the two following passages, which would seem to prove that Norwich was the Venta Icenorum almost beyond dispute.”
Here follow Latin quotations from the life of William the Conqueror by William of Poictiers and from Ordericus Vitalis under the year 1067.
William of Poictiers says:—
“Gwenta urbs est nobilis atque valens, cives ac finitimos habet divites, infidos, et audaces: Danos in auxilium ceteris recipere potest: a mari quod Anglos a Danis separat millia passuum quatuor-decim distat. Hujus quoque urbis intra mœnia, munitionem construxit, ibidem Gulielmum reliquit Osberni filium præcipuum in exercito suo, et in vice sua interim toti regno Aquilonem versus præesset.”
And Ordericus Vitalis states:—
“Intra mænia Gwentæ, opibus et munimine nobilis urbis, et mari contiguæ, validem arcem construxit, ibique Gulielmum Osberni filium in exercitu suo præcipuum reliquit, eumque vice sua toti Regno versus Aquilonem præesse constituit.”
“Taking, then, Norwich for the Venta Icenorum of the Romans—called Caer Guntum by the British, and Northwic by the Saxons and Danes—you find the Capital of the Iceni, founded on the shoulder of the promontory overlooking the Wensum, towards the great estuary, which formed a natural stronghold for successive races of inhabitants. Whilst the Romans, fixing their permanent camp at Caistor, on the Taes, where that river joined the estuary, into which the Wensum, the Taes, and the Yare, all discharged themselves, would command the passage into the interior of the country; and taking Caistor for the ‘Ad Taum,’ you will find the distances sufficiently to agree with the Roman Itineraries.”
“The Camp at Caistor contains an area of about thirty-five acres, and the Roman station at Taesborough, on another promontory higher up upon the stream, has an area of about twenty-four acres.”
Another strong point in favour of Norwich having been the Venta Icenorum is, that all the roads radiated from the city to all parts of East Anglia.
In tracing the rise and progress of the city we must remember that it was in the centre of a vast common, and that it was the nucleus of an agricultural community, at first without any trade or any kind of manufactures. It was merely a collection of huts or a fishing station, near the banks of a river or arm of the sea. The social state of the place should be considered with reference to the progress of agriculture at different periods in the surrounding district. Norwich was for ages only a small market town, with a very small number of inhabitants.
The destruction of all documents relating to East Anglia, during the irruptions of the Danes, has rendered this period the most obscure of any period of our history. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes having subjugated the fair territory of England, they divided it into seven kingdoms, called the Heptarchy, in which Norfolk formed a part of East Anglia. The Anglo-Saxon leader, Uffa, established himself in this part of the island, in 575; and assumed dominion over that portion of the eastern district now divided into Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire, giving it the name of East Anglia, of which Norwich was made the metropolis. Norwich was, therefore, a royal city, and the residence of the kings. Uffa, the first king, is supposed to have formed here a strong entrenchment of earth on the site of the present castle, encircled by broad ramparts and a ditch, as under the present Saxon arch. Uffa, who died A.D. 578, was succeeded by his son Titul; on whose demise, in 599, his son Redwald assumed the reins of government and embraced Christianity, but by the influence of his wife renounced it again. He was succeeded, A.D. 624, by his son Erpenwald, who was killed by a relation named Richbert, A.D. 633. His half brother Sigebert, who succeeded to the crown, established the bishopric of Dunwich, in Suffolk, and formed the first seminary for religious instruction, which led to the establishment of the university in Cambridge. Fatigued with the crown and its cares, he resigned it, A.D. 644, to his kinsman Egric, and retired into the famous monastery at Bury St. Edmund’s.
Norwich then became one of the chief seats of Anna, king of the East Angles, who gave the castle, with the lands belonging to it, to his daughter Ethelfrida on her marriage with Tombert, a prince of the Gyrvii or Fenmen, who inhabited the fens of Lincolnshire and the adjacent parts of Norfolk. At the same time Tombert granted to Ethelfrida, as a marriage settlement, the isle of Ely, which for greater security was to be held by castle guard service to the castle of Norwich.
From the time of Anna till the reign of Alfred the Great there are few events on record except the frequent incursions of the piratical Danes, who at last over-ran East Anglia, and had their head quarters at Thetford in 870. But the reign of the Great Alfred was distinguished by his decisive victories over those Northern marauders. One of his chief objects was to fortify the principal parts of his kingdom against hostile attacks. Finding the walls or ramparts of Norwich Castle too weak for repelling the attacks of the Danes, he caused others to be erected with the most durable materials. That it was a noted military station, and a royal castle in his time, is evident from a coin struck here in the year 872, having round the head AElfred Rex, and on the reverse Northwic. After making peace with the Danes in 878, he assigned to them, for their residence, the whole of East Anglia, and their leader Guthrum fixed his seat at Norwich; but, breaking his faith, the city and county were wrested from him, and reverted again to the Angles under six successive sovereigns.
Edward the Elder succeeded his father, the illustrious Alfred, in the year 901, and kept the Danes at bay. Ericke, one of their chiefs, held East Anglia under the king, till he rebelled in 913, when he was overthrown and slain. Athelstan, who succeeded Edward, totally expelled the Danes, and reduced the whole kingdom under his government. In his reign Norwich flourished, and it is probable that he was here in 925, for a coin still extant has on the obverse Ethalstan, and on the reverse “Barbe Mon Northwic,” that is “Barbe, mint master of Norwich.” Among the other East Anglian coins struck here, the following may be mentioned; one of Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, inscribed round the head Edmund Rex, and on the reverse Edgar Mon Northwic; several of Edred, coined about 946, and inscribed round the head Eadred Rex, and on the reverse Hanne Mo Northwic; two of Edward the Martyr, having on the obverse Edward Rex. Angl. and on the reverse Leofwine Mon Nor.; and three of Ethelred the Unready, having on the obverse Edelred Rex.
There is no account of the castle after the time of Anna till the Danish wars; and then it was often won and lost by the contending powers.
Blomefield, in his History of Norfolk, vol. II. p. 4, notices the coins of several Anglo-Saxon princes, Alfred, Athelstan, Edmund I., Edred, Edward the Martyr, and Ethelred II. The circumstance of Alfred coining money here is remarkable, as at the date of this coinage, (872) the government of East Anglia could only have just come into his hands, upon the extinction of the East Anglian dynasty in the person of St. Edmund, and the country either was or had just been in the military possession of the Danes.
During the reign of Athelstan the city appears to have been in a flourishing state. In the reign of Edward, 941, and his successor Edred, 945, it greatly increased in wealth and extent. The greater part of the city was then built on the north side of the river Wensum, with a small population. The city is certainly of Anglo-Saxon origin, but as an Anglo-Saxon city it was destroyed by the Danes, and no vestiges remain of its Anglo-Saxon buildings, excepting, perhaps, one or two round towers of churches.
The Danes became settled in the city, and fortified themselves against all enemies, about 1011; and the next year, Turkil or Turketel, a Danish earl, took possession of all Norfolk, having expelled the English Earl Ulfketel, and held it under Sweyn till his death, which happened in 1014. Then the Danish army chose Canute his son for their king: but upon Sweyn’s death the English took courage and sent for Ethelred out of Normandy, who returned and drove Canute out of the country. Turkel, however, continued governor of the East Angles, and he persuaded Canute to return; and he became king of England in 1017. That monarch assigned all Norfolk to Earl Turkel; and according to the old author of an Essay on the Antiquity of the Castle:—
“Committed to him the custody of Norwich, which his father Sweyn burnt and destroyed; and to keep the East Angles secure to him, he (Canute) was most like to be the builder of the present stone Castle of Norwich. For when by compact with the English nobles, the law called Engleshire was made by universal consent, for the safety of the Danes that were by agreement to remain in England, Canute sent home to Denmark his mercenary army of Danes, but in great caution built several strong forts and castles, garrisoning them with such Danes as had been settled in England before his time, intermixed with such English as he had confidence in.”
The author of this ingenious Essay produces sufficient arguments to show that there was a building in the fortifications in the reign of Canute, and that there had been one since the time of King Alfred, and that Canute might have repaired or even rebuilt it. Indeed, there must have been a castle before the Conquest, as in Domesday Book a number of tenements are stated to have belonged to the castle. The present building was probably reared after the Conquest, it being so like Rising Castle and others. Roger Bigot very likely built it, and Thomas Brotherton repaired it in the reign of Edward I., as proved by his arms still in the stone work. Certain it is, from the time of Sweyn’s settling in the city in 1010, and the Danes swarming hither in large numbers, it rose almost at once to great importance, as appears from the Survey in the reign of Edward the Confessor. This is highly probable if we believe the best authority on the subject, namely the Saxon Chronicle, which states that the city rose from desolation, in 50 years, to be a place of great magnitude, far exceeding its former size. The Danes came hither in such numbers that they became the parent stock of the people of Norwich and Norfolk; and this is proved by the names of many places in Norfolk.
Edward the Confessor began his reign in 1041, and the Earldom of Norfolk was given to Harold, son of Earl Godwin, who was afterwards king of England, and on his rebellion was seized by the king and given to Algar, son of Leofric, Earl of Chester, who resigned it again to Harold at his return; and in 1052, on the death of Earl Godwin, Harold, in recompense for his generosity, gave Algar his earldom again; but he being banished in 1055, it came to the king, who pardoned him at Harold’s request, so that he enjoyed it till his death, when it came again to the king.
The Norman Conquest of England caused many changes in Norfolk and Norwich. One of the immediate results of the invasion, in 1066, was a vast influx of foreigners into the county and city; and the pressure of the Norman yoke was felt as much in Norwich as in any part of the kingdom. It was about the same period that Jews began to settle here for the first time, enriched by the extortions incident to a conquest, and, as Fuller says, “buying such oppressed Englishmen’s goods as Christians did not care to meddle with.”
William the Conqueror caused a survey to be made of all the lands in the country, the register of which is called the Domesday Book, and was finished in 1081. It is written in Roman with a mixture of Saxon, and is still preserved in the chapter-house at Westminster, amongst the national archives. It was printed in the 40th of George III. for the use of the members of both houses of parliament, and the public libraries of the kingdom. It specifies the extent of the land in each district; the state it was in, whether meadow, pasture, wood, or arable; the name of the proprietor; the value, &c. Domesday Book, p. 13, states:—
“In Norwic, in the time of King Edward, were 1320 burgesses, of whom one was so much the king’s vassal, that he might not depart or do homage (to any other) without his licence. His name was Edstan; he possessed 18 acres of land and 12 of meadow, and two churches in the burgh and a sixth part of a third, and to one of these churches there belonged one mansion in the burgh and six acres of meadow: these six acres Roger Bigod holds by the king’s gift. And of 1238 (of the said burgesses) the king and the earl had soc, sac, and custom; and of 50 Stigand had the soc, sac, and patronage; and of 32 Harold had the soc, sac, and patronage,” &c., &c.
Soc, sac, and custom was the entire jurisdiction, for soc is the power that any man had to hold courts, wherein all that dwell on his land, or in his jurisdiction are answerable to do suit and service; sac is the right of having all the amerciaments and forfeitures of such suitors; and custom includes all other profits. At this time, also, there were no fewer than 136 burgesses who were Frenchmen, and only six who were English in the new burgh, which comprised the parishes of St. Giles’ and St. Peter’s Mancroft. The Dutch and the Flemings, about this time, came over the sea and located themselves in the city and county, and introduced the worsted and other manufactures.
William I. gave the Earldom of the city of Norwich to Ralph de Guader, who designed to wed the daughter of one William Fitz-Osbern, sister of Roger Earl of Hereford, and a relative of the king. This matrimonial scheme not pleasing the king, it was prohibited, but barons in those days would sometimes have a will of their own, and the fair affianced was made a bride within the castle walls, whose doorway in an angle marks the site of the act of disobedience to the sovereign. After the sumptuous feast, with its attendant libations, a rebellion was planned by Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland, Huntingdon, and Northampton, and Roger, Earl of Hereford. Having carried the forbidden marriage into effect, they became bold in their language and designs, until a chorus of excited voices joined them in oaths as conspirators against their lord the king. Treachery revealed the plot, and the church lent its aid to the crown to crush the rebels. Lanfranc, then the primate and archbishop, sent out troops, headed by bishops and justiciaries, the highest dignitaries of church and law, to oppose and besiege them. The bridegroom fled for succour to his native Brittany, leaving his bride for three months to defend the garrison with her retainers, at the end of which time the brave Emma was forced to capitulate, but upon mild terms, obtaining leave for herself and her followers to flee to Brittany. Her husband became an outlaw, her brother was slain, and scarcely one guest present at that ill-fated marriage feast escaped an untimely end.
Nor did the city go unscathed. The devastation carried into its midst was heavy; many houses were burnt, many were deserted by those who had joined the earl, and it is curious to read in the valuation of land and property, taken soon after this event, how many houses are recorded as void, both in the burgh or that part of the city under the jurisdiction of the king and earl, and in other portions, subject to other lords; for it would seem that the landlords of the soil on which the city stood were the king or earl of the castle, the bishop, and the Harold family. Clusters of huts were then built round the base of the hill, and constituted the feudal village; its inhabitants consisting of villains, of which there were two classes, the husbandmen or peasants annexed to the manor or land, and a lower rank described as villains in gross, or absolute slaves, transferable by deed from one owner to another, the lives of these slaves being a continual state of toil, degradation and suffering.
After the banishment of Earl Ralph, the king, having obtained possession of the castle, appointed Roger Bigod constable, with a limited power as bailiff, he having to collect the rents and revenues belonging to the crown. He retained these honours during the reign of the succeeding monarch, William Rufus, though he joined in the fruitless attempt to place that king’s elder brother, Robert Curthose, on the throne. These troubles were not ended till 1091, when the king made peace with his brother Robert, agreeing that the lands of those who had assisted him should be restored to them.
About the commencement of this century, a considerable addition was made to the population of the city by a vast influx of Jews, who originally came from Normandy, and were allowed to settle in England as chapmen for the sale of confiscated goods. They afterwards became numerous, and were so much in favour with William Rufus that he is said to have sworn, by St. Luke’s face, his usual oath, that “If the Jews should overcome the Christians, he himself would become of their sect.” In his reign the present castle is supposed to have been built.
Henry I., on his accession to the crown, met with great opposition from many of the nobles who were in the interest of his elder brother, Robert, Duke of Normandy; but Roger Bigod strongly espousing his cause, became a great favourite. In the first part of his reign, the king gave him Framlingham in Suffolk, and continued him Constable of the Castle till his death. He was succeeded by his son William Bigod, on whose decease Hugh Bigod, his brother, who inherited his estate, was appointed Governor of the Castle. In 1122, the king kept his Christmas in Norwich, when, being pleased with the reception he met with, he severed the government of the city from that of the castle, the constable of which had been heretofore the sole governor. Henry I. granted the city a charter containing the same franchises as the city of London then enjoyed, and the government of the city was then separated from that of the castle, the chief officer being styled Propositus or Provost. The liberties of the city from the time of Henry I. to Edward III., were often suspended and gradually enlarged. In 1403 the city was separated entirely from the county of Norfolk, under the name of the county and city of Norwich; and the first Mayor was then elected by the citizens. The old corporation generally comprised a dignified body of men, who maintained the hospitalities of the city. Under the ancient charter the corporation of Norwich consisted of a mayor, recorder, steward, two sheriffs, twenty-four aldermen, including the mayor, and sixty common councilmen. The Municipal Reform Act transferred its government into the hands of a mayor, a sheriff, and a town council consisting of forty-eight councillors, and sixteen aldermen elected by the council, who unitedly elect the mayor and sheriff. To these, and to a recorder, with an indefinite number of magistrates appointed by the crown, the government of the city is entrusted.
King Stephen, on his accession, granted the custody of the castle to his favourite, Hugh Bigod, who was a principal instrument in advancing him to the crown, by coming directly from Normandy where Henry I. died, and averring that he on his deathbed had disinherited his daughter Maud, the empress, and appointed Stephen, Earl of Bolyne, his heir. The citizens, therefore, taking this opportunity, used what interest they could with the king to obtain a new charter, vesting the government of the city in coroners and bailiffs instead of provosts; but the affair took a different turn to what they expected, for the king, upon a distrust of Bigod favouring the cause of the Empress Maud, seized the castle and all the liberties of the city into his own hands, and soon afterwards granted to his natural son William, for an appanage or increase of inheritance, the town and burgh of the city of Norwich, in which were 1238 burgesses who held of the king in burgage tenure; and also the castle and burgh thereof, in which were 123 burgesses that held of the king in burgage, and also the royal revenue of the whole county of Norfolk, excepting what belonged to the bishopric, &c. The whole rent of the city, including the fee farm, was then about £700 per annum. The king restored the city liberties for a fine in 1139.
During the reign of King Stephen more Flemings came over; and these successive immigrations were a real blessing to the land. England had not been a manufacturing country at all till the arrival of the Flemings, who introduced the preparation and weaving of wool, so that, in process of time, not only the home market was abundantly supplied with woollen cloth, but a large surplus was made for exportation. The Flemings were kinsmen of the Anglo-Saxon race, and were distinguished for that probity in their commercial dealings which afterwards became the characteristic of the English merchants at large.
Henry II., in the first year of his reign, 1155, took the city, castle, and liberties from William, the natural son of Stephen; but, as a recompense, restored to him all those lands which his father held in the reign of Henry I. He also prevailed upon Hugh Bigod to yield up all his castles, whereby the whole right became vested in the crown; the king governing the city by the sheriff, who paid the profits arising therefrom into the exchequer. About the year 1163 Hugh Bigod was restored to the title of the Earl of Norfolk, and at the same time appointed Constable of Norwich Castle, by which means he became sole governor of the city. In 1182, the citizens recovered the liberties of the city on paying a fine of 80 marks to the king.
Richard I. was crowned September 4th, 1189, and a riot happened on account of a Jew attempting to enter Westminster Hall contrary to the king’s express command. Many of the Jews were killed, and their houses plundered and burnt. A rumour was thereupon spread throughout the nation that the king did not favour them, on which the people of Bury, Lynn, and Norwich, took occasion to rise and rob great numbers of them. On November 27th following, Roger, son of Hugh Bigod, was created Earl of Norfolk, and steward of the king’s household. By his means the city regained as ample a charter as London then possessed, for in 1193, the king granted the city in fee farm to the citizens and their heirs, for a fee farm rent of £180 yearly.
King John ascended the throne in 1193, and in a few years afterwards the barons rebelled against him. In 1215, Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, joined the insurgent barons. The king seized the castle, expelled the earl, and appointed the Earl of Pembroke and John Fitz-Herbert Constables of the Castle. Lewis, the Dauphin of France, having obtained a grant of the kingdom from the pope, brought over a large force, ravaged the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, took the castle, and reduced the city. He made William de Bellomonte his marshal and constable, and placed him with a garrison within the castle walls.
King John granted two charters to the citizens, bestowing certain privileges; and he came to the city in 1256, as is evident from the Charter of Liberties granted to the port of Yarmouth, it being dated March 25, 1256, by the king at Norwich. On the same day he likewise granted his third Charter to the city, bestowing certain commercial privileges. In 1265 Simon Montfort and his adherents seized all the king’s castles and committed the custody of them to their own friends, and having also gotten the king’s person into their power, they obliged him to send letters to the sheriffs of counties, including Norfolk, commanding them to oppose all attempts in favour of the king. But the king having routed the barons at Eversham, removed all the constables which the confederates had appointed, and amongst the rest Roger Bigod; in whose stead, John de Vallibus, or Vaux, was made Constable of this Castle, and Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, and soon afterwards, in consequence of great disturbances in the city, he was ordered to enter it, and did so, notwithstanding its liberties. In December, 1266, the displaced barons, headed by Sir John de Evile, entered the city and killed many persons, imprisoned more, plundered the town, and carried away the wealthiest of the inhabitants.
According to Blomefield, about this time, on a Good Friday, the Jews were accused of having crucified a boy, twelve years of age, named William; and the date of his alleged death, March 24th, was marked as a holiday. No evidence is adduced that the crime was committed, and no motive is assigned for it. The date of the year is not given, and the boy’s name besides William is not stated. The Jews denied the charge, but it was generally believed, and they were terribly persecuted. The people then seized upon every pretence for robbing and plundering the poor Jews. It is said that the crime was discovered by Erlward, a burgess, as they were going to bury the body in Thorpe Wood. On this the Jews applied to the sheriff, and promised him 100 marks if he would free them from this charge. The sheriff sending for Erlward obliged him to swear that so long as he lived he would never accuse the Jews nor discover the fact. About five years afterwards, Erlward, on his deathbed, made known the whole affair, and the body, it is said, having been found in the wood, was taken and buried in the churchyard of the monks. They alleged that many miracles were there wrought by it which occasioned its being removed into the church and enshrined in the year 1150.
Edward I. succeeded to the throne in 1272, and in the next year the king appointed Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, to be Constable of the Castle. The interdict, which was removed on Christmas eve, was renewed on the day after Epiphany, but was taken off till Easter, when it was renewed the third time. In 1274, the affair between the monks and citizens continuing unsettled, it was referred to the pope, who left it to the decision of the king, who adjudged the citizens to pay 500 marks yearly for six years, and to give the church a cup of the value of £100, and weighing 10 lbs. in gold. The monks were to repair their gates and to have access to all parts of the city, and some of the chief citizens were to go to Rome to beg the pope’s pardon. These conditions being agreed to, the king restored to the city all its ancient privileges on payment of a fine of 40s. yearly, besides the old fee farm. The interdict was also removed on November 1st, 1275. The king kept his Easter in the city in 1277, and he granted a new charter in 1285. In 1289 the liberties were seized, but were restored again at the end of the year. Soon afterwards the king, while on a pilgrimage to Walsingham, granted a new charter. In 1296, the city first sent representatives to parliament, originally four in number, who were paid for their services, but on account of the expense the number was reduced to two members.
In this century this city and other towns began to obtain political privileges. The kings of the middle ages found themselves obliged to summon burgesses to parliament in order to obtain supplies. The early parliaments appear to have been convened chiefly for this purpose, and were constantly dissolved as soon as the business for which they met was transacted. Formerly the burgesses returned were always citizens, who really were representatives of the city and its interests, and not merely supporters of the ministry of the day. There is no record of the early local elections, but lists will be given of the burgesses returned.
Edward II. began his reign on July 7th, 1307, and he reigned nineteen years. Walter de Norwich, son of Jeffry de Norwich, was so much in favour with the king as to be one of the Barons of the Exchequer in 1311, and in 1314 was summoned as a parliamentary baron, and afterwards made the Treasurer of the Exchequer, which office he held several years. He obtained liberty for free warren in all his demean lands, and a fair to the manor of Ling in Norfolk, on July 20th, and two days following. He continued in favour till his death.
In the reign of Edward III., A.D. 1328, the king, by a statute, made Norwich a staple town for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, by which the trade of the city was much increased. In the “Paston Letters” we find the following reference to articles of Norfolk manufacture:
“I pray that you will send me hither two ells of worsted for doublets, to happen me this cold winter, and that ye enquire where William Paston bought his tippet of fine worsted which is almost like silk, and if that be much finer that ye sh’d buy me, after seven or eight shillings, then buy me a quarter and the nail thereof for collars, though it be dearer than the other, for I would make my doublet all worsted for the honour of Norfolk.”
In 1340, Norwich Castle was made the public prison for the county of Norfolk, and the custody thereof was committed to the sheriff. A great tournament was held in Norwich, at which the king, with his queen Phillippa, was present; and they kept their court at the bishop’s palace. In 1342 the king and queen honoured the city with another visit.
In 1344 a new charter was granted, by which the liberty of the castle was reduced to the outward limits of the present ditch, and so continues. By this charter, the citizens became proprietor’s of the ancient fee of the castle, that is, the castle ditches, and the great croft, now the market place.
In the reign of Richard II., A.D. 1381, Wat Tyler’s rebellion broke out in London. Insurrection became prevalent in many parts of the kingdom, manufactures declined, and discontent became general. Norwich and Norfolk shared in the general plunder at the hands of armed bands. Under John Lyster, Litister, or Linster, a dyer, 50,000 men attacked the city and committed great depredations. They were, however, pursued to North Walsham by the king’s troops under the command of Henry Le Spencer, Bishop of Norwich, and defeated. Their leader and many of his adherents were taken and executed for high treason. They were hung, drawn, and quartered, according to the barbarous usage of the times. In 1399, the bailiffs having put the city into a proper posture of defence, openly declared for Henry Duke of Lancaster, son and heir of John of Gaunt, the late deceased duke, their especial friend. On this declaration, Henry gave them strong assurances that, whenever it was in his power, the charter which they so earnestly desired for electing a mayor, &c., should be granted them, and he was afterwards as good as his word. The great connection there was between John of Gaunt and this city, arose through William Norwich, a knight, who was a friend of the Duke’s, and who frequently visited the town, for which he always expressed great regard. In 1389, the great John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, visited this city, and was honourably received.
In the first year of Henry IV., Sir Thomas Erpingham, knight, a Norfolk man, Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Lord Chamberlain, obtained the King’s Charter, dated at Westminster, February 6th, 1399, confirming all the former charters ever granted to the city. In 1409, through the interest of Sir Thomas, a grant was made to the city for a certain term of years of the alnage and survey of all manner of worsteds made in Norwich and Norfolk.
St. George’s Company took its rise in the second half of the fourteenth century, and consisted of a society of brethren and sisters associated in honour of the Martyr St. George, who by voluntary contributions supported a chaplain to celebrate service every day in the cathedral before the altar, for the welfare of the brethren and sisters of the Guild, whilst living, and of their souls when dead. In this state they continued till the fourth year of Henry V., when that prince granted them a charter dated at Reading, incorporating them by the name of the Aldermen, Masters, Brethren, and Sisters of the Fraternity and Guild of St. George in Norwich; and empowering them to choose yearly, one Alderman and two Masters, and to make all reasonable orders and constitutions for their own government; to have a common seal; to sue and be sued; and to maintain a chaplain to pray daily for the health of the king, the alderman, masters, and sisters whilst alive, and their souls when dead; and lastly to purchase £10 per annum in mortmain. The prior, mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of the Guild, had power to expel or remove any member for bad behaviour. In consequence of this charter, ordinances were made for the well-governing of the society, and for yearly choosing one alderman, four masters, and twenty-four brethren, for the Assembly or Common Council. In 1451, by the mediation of Judge Yelverton, the disputes between the Guild and the city were settled; when it was agreed that the mayor for the time being should yearly, on the day after the Guild, be chosen Alderman of the Guild for the year following his mayoralty, that the Assembly of the Guild should consist of twenty persons, and that the common council of the city should be eligible for admission into the company, but be liable to the charge of the feast. Indeed, the chief object of the Guild was feasting. Every brother took an oath on admission. The Aldermen and Common Council of the Guild had power to choose such men and women, inhabitants of the city, to be brethren and sisters of the Guild, as they might think fit. But no man living out of the city could be chosen unless he was a knight, esquire, or gentleman of note. Many other orders were made in regard to their procession, which was always very grand. This Guild, with the other ancient crafts or companies of the city, made a very splendid appearance on all public occasions. The companies were then on the same footing as those of the city of London now are, and some of the trades long continued as a fraternity, and chose wardens among themselves. From the Friday after May day, to the Friday before the Guild day, the members of St. George’s Company used to meet every evening at the Guildhall in the Market Place, where they refreshed themselves with as much sack and sugar rolls as they pleased, besides two penny cakes from the baker’s. Being thus assembled they sent for the last chosen feast-makers, and asked them whether they intended to bear the charges of the feast, “which” (said they) “will cost you more than you think.” By this they so terrified timorous, wary people, that they were persuaded to buy it off, though, had they agreed to make the feast, it would not have cost them much more than £6 or £7, which sum they were glad to save. The Company continued till February 24th, 1731, when the committee appointed for the purpose reported to an assembly held that day, that they had treated with St. George’s Company, who had agreed to deliver up their charters, books, and records, into the hands of the corporation, provided the latter would pay their debts, amounting to £236 15s. 1d., which, being agreed to, they were accordingly delivered up and deposited with the city records in the Guildhall. Thus terminated this ancient feasting company by the surrender of all their goods to the corporation.
At the commencement of this century (in 1402) the grand affair of obtaining a new charter occupied the greater part of the time of the citizens, but as nothing could be done without the concurrence of Bishop Spencer, they at last found means to soften him, and to obtain his promise that he would not oppose them in this their favourite object. All obstacles being now removed, they offered to lend Henry 1000 marks, which so far obliged the king that he was willing to give them as full a charter as they could desire. This was accordingly done, and the new charter was granted on January 28th, 1403. By this charter the city obtained a full power of local self-government.
Henry V. began his reign on March 20th, 1412, in which year the city was in great disorder, occasioned by the disputes between the Mayor and the Commons, respecting the election of mayors, sheriffs, and other officers of the corporation, and the powers granted by the charter, concerning which they could not agree. These contentions exhausted the city treasury, and at length they were settled by the mediation of Sir Robert Berney, John Lancaster, William Paston, and others. The burgesses who served in Parliament in this reign were R. Brasier, R. Dunston, W. Sedman, J. Biskelee, H. Rufman, W. Eton, J. Alderfold, W. Appleyard, R. Baxter, and Henry Peking.
In 1422 the doctrines of the Reformation were introduced into the city, and several persons were executed as Wickliffites or Lollards. A large chalk pit, in Thorpe Hamlet, on the outskirts of the city, is to this day called “Lollards’ Pit.”
Henry VI., when only nine months old, was proclaimed king on August 31st, 1422, and in his reign a general persecution of the Lollards broke out in this diocese. The Lollards were men who earnestly desired the reformation of the church, and they were followers of that great and good man John Wickliffe, but they were called Lollards as a name of infamy. They were so zealous for the truth that they chose rather to suffer grievous torments and death than forsake their faith. On this account about 120 persons were persecuted for their profession of the pure gospel of Christ.
On June 6th, 1448, the king paid a royal visit to the city, and among other preparations the gates were decorated, and the King’s arms, and the arms of St. George, were painted and raised on six of the gates. In 1449, his Majesty paid another visit, after a sojourn with the Earl of Suffolk at Costessey. The king entered Norwich by St. Benedict’s Gate, which was especially ornamented for the occasion. These peaceable entries, with the picturesque pomp of a royal procession, always pleased the loyal citizens.
In 1452, it being rumoured that Edward earl of March, son to the duke of York, was advancing towards London, the queen, much terrified thereat, tried to make as many friends as she could, and for that purpose came to this city, when, in full assembly, the Commons resolved to advance 100 marks as a loan to the king; and the aldermen at the same time presented the queen with 60 marks, to which the Commons added 40 more, so that the king had now 200 marks of the city. The citizens then obtained a new charter, dated March 17th, and consented to in full parliament. It contained a restitution of all liberties, a general pardon of all past offences, and a confirmation of all former charters.
In 1460, during the contest between the houses of York and Lancaster, the mayor and aldermen raised forty armed men and the Commons eighty, and appointed Wm. Rookwood, Esq., their captain, with whom they agreed for six weeks’ pay, at six-pence a day for each soldier, and sent them to the assistance of the king, who wrote them a letter of thanks, with a request that they would maintain the soldiers for one month longer, which was readily complied with. In 1474, the king visited the city, and was presented with a sum of money by way of benevolence; but in the following year the city had to pay £80 6s. 11d. for the forces employed in France.
In July 1469, Elizabeth Woodville, the queen of Edward IV., visited Norwich and remained here several days. Her majesty, with a great retinue, entered the city through “Westwyk Gate,” which was decorated for the occasion. John Parnell was brought from Ipswich to exercise his skill in ornamentation; and under his superintendence, a stage covered with red-and-green worsted was erected, adorned with figures of angels, escutcheons, and banners of the royal lady and the king, with a profusion of crowns, roses, fleur-de-lys, &c. Gilbert Spurling exhibited a fragment of the salutation of Mary and Elizabeth, which required from him a speech in explanation.
In 1486, being the 1st Henry VII., on the rebellion of Lambert Simnel, who assumed the name of Edward Plantagenet, the king, expecting an invasion of the eastern parts of his kingdom, made a progress through Norfolk and Suffolk to confirm the inhabitants in their loyalty, and spent his Christmas at Norwich, when the city made him a handsome present. Hence he went a pilgrimage to Walsingham, so famous for its pretended miracles, where he made his vows; and after he returned victorious, he sent his banner to be offered there as an acknowledgment of his prayers having been heard.
The monastic institutions of this city might claim the honour of having some learned men connected with them in the 15th century. Thomas Brinton, or Brampton, a monk of Norwich, attained to such an eminence in the schools of England that his fame was spread abroad, and he was sent for by the pope to Rome. He often preached before the pope in Latin, and being first made his penitentiary was afterwards raised to the see of Rochester. His sermons preached before the pope were published, with some others. John Stow, who flourished in 1440, was a Benedictine monk of the monastery of St. Saviour, in Norwich, and doctor of divinity of Oxford. It appears, by his works, that he was at the council of Basil. His works were The Acts of the Council at Basil; various Collections; and Solemn Disputations, &c. John Mear, a monk of Norwich, and D.D. of Oxford, was a person of subtle art for explaining difficulties. He was divinity reader at several monasteries, and the author of several works, which have all been lost.
At the commencement of this century most of the houses in the city were built of wood with thatched roofs. This accounts for the number of fires which broke out at different times, and which, in 1507 and 1509, reduced a large portion of the city to ashes, no fewer than 718 houses being consumed in the latter year. These conflagrations induced the corporation, in 1509, to issue an order that no newly-erected buildings in the city should be covered with thatch, but this injunction not extending to those previously erected, some few still retain this dangerous covering.
In 1501, John Rightwise, then mayor, began building the cross in the Market Place, and finished it in 1503. It was a commodious and handsome pile, but falling into decay, it was sold by the Tonnage Committee in 1732 for £125, and soon afterwards it was taken down. About 1506, St. Andrew’s Church was built, near the site of the old church of St. Christopher.
Henry VIII. began his reign on April 22nd, 1509, when the city was in a state of great distraction, on account of the terrible fires which caused much destruction of property. In that year a great part of the cathedral, with its vestry, and all the ornaments and books were destroyed by a fire, which broke out on St. Thomas’ night. In 1515, the Lady Mary, sister to the king, and her consort the Duke of Suffolk, visited the city on their return from France, and were nobly entertained. Henry VIII., while he continued a papist, burned the reformers; and when in a fit of anger he disowned the pope and assumed the English tiara, he was no less zealous against both Papist and Puritan, who would not bind their consciences to his royal decrees. During the prelacy of Richard Nykke or Nix, the bigotted bishop of Norwich, several church reformers were burnt here and at other places.
In 1517, Cardinal Wolsey visited the city to mediate between the citizens and the monks, but their disputes were not finally settled till 1524, when the jurisdiction of the convent was ascertained and separated from that of the corporation until 1538, when they were converted into a dean and chapter.
On March 2nd, 1520, Queen Catherine and Cardinal Wolsey visited the city, and all the city companies went to meet the queen “in Puke and Dirke Tawney Liveries,” and the city presented her with 100 marks.
In 1522, in consequence of the many vexatious suits in the Sheriff’s Court for words and trifling debts, it was agreed that four aldermen be named, one out of each of the great wards, to sit in person, or by deputies, every Wednesday, from eight till nine in the morning, to adjust all debts under two shillings, and all actions on words, for the ease and peace of the city. This institution was of great benefit, and in some measure answered the purpose of the old Court of Conscience.
In 1524, on September 2nd, through the mediation of Cardinal Wolsey, a composition and final agreement was sealed between the prior and the city at the Guildhall, by which the city resigned all jurisdiction within the walls of the priory, the whole site thereof being hereby acknowledged to be part of the County of Norfolk and in the Hundred of Blofield; and the church gave up all right of jurisdiction in every place without their walls and within the walls of the city; so that now, Tombland, with the fairs kept thereon, and all things belonging to those fairs—and Holmstrete, Spytelond, and Ratten Row, with their letes—were adjudged to belong to the city, and to be part of the county thereof. The prior and convent and their successors were also exempted from all tolls, customs, and exactions whatever, by land or water in the whole city, or county of the city and its liberties, for goods or chattels bought or sold for the use of the prior and convent, their households, or families.
In 1525 the king granted the city another charter, confirmed likewise by parliament, in which the late composition and agreement between the city and prior was fully recited and established, and new privileges were granted.
In 1530 the king was declared supreme head of the church of England; and was acknowledged so by act of parliament in 1535. In the latter year an act was passed for recontinuing liberties in the crown, by which all cities, boroughs, and towns corporate, had their liberties and privileges fully confirmed.
A short account of the martyrdom of Thomas Bilney, in 1531, may serve to illustrate the persecuting spirit of the age. He had renounced the tenets of the Church of Rome, and was condemned on the following passages extracted from two sermons which he had preached in 1527, at Ipswich.
“Our Saviour Christ is our Mediator between us and the Father; what need have we therefore for any remedy from saints? It is a great injury to the blood of Christ to make such petitions, and blasphemeth our Saviour.”
“Man is so imperfect by himself, that he can in no wise merit by his own deeds.”
“The coming of Christ was long prophesied before, and desired by the prophets; but John Baptist, being more than a prophet, did not only prophesy, but with his finger shewed Him, saying, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.’ Then, if this was the very Lamb which John did demonstrate, that taketh away the sins of the world, what injury is it to our Saviour Christ, that to be buried in St. Francis’ cowl should remit four parts of penance? What is then left to our Saviour Christ, which taketh away the sins of the world? This I will justify to be a great blasphemy to the blood of Christ.”
“It is great folly to go on pilgrimages; and preachers in times past have been antichrists; and now it hath pleased God somewhat to shew forth their falsehoods and errors.”
“The miracles done at Walsingham, Canterbury, and Ipswich, were done by the devil through the sufferance of God, to blind the poor people; and the Pope hath not the keys that St. Peter had, except he followeth Peter in his living.”
“Christian people should set up no lights before images of saints, for saints in heaven need no lights, and images have no eyes to see; and, therefore, as Ezechias destroyed the brazen serpent that Moses made by the commandment of God, even so should the kings and princes of these times destroy and burn the images of saints set up in churches.”
It was further deposed against Bilney, that he was notoriously suspected to be a heretic, and that in his sermons he had exhorted the people to put away their gods of silver and gold, and to desist from offering to them either candle, wax, money, or any other thing; and that in rehearsing the litany he said, “pray you only to God and no saints;” and when he came to that part, Sancta Maria, &c., or, O Saint Mary pray for us, he called out, “stop there.”
These and many other articles of the like nature being proved, he was exhorted to recant and abjure them; and upon his refusing to do so, the Bishop of London, having pulled off his cap, and made the sign of the cross on his forehead and breast, pronounced the following sentence:—
“I, by the counsel and consent of my brethren here present, do pronounce thee, Thomas Bilney, who has been accused of divers articles, to be convicted of heresy; and for the rest of the sentence we will deliberate till to-morrow.”
The next day Bilney was again asked whether he would recant and return to the unity of the church; when he desired a day or two for consideration and to consult his friends. In fear of a dreadful death at the expiration of the time, he subscribed his abjuration; and being absolved, he had the following penance enjoined him; to bear a faggot at the procession at St. Paul’s, bareheaded, and to stand before the preacher during the sermon there, and to remain in prison till he should be released by Cardinal Wolsey. When in prison, the reflection on what he had done drove Bilney almost to despair, and he suffered all the agonies of remorse for more than twelve months.
At length he resolved to seal that truth which he had so shamefully abjured, with his blood. For this purpose he travelled to Norwich, and on his way to the city he openly preached those doctrines for which he had been condemned; and being apprehended, was confined in one of the cells under the Guildhall. On August 19th, he was taken to Lollards’ pit, outside of Bishopsgate, and burnt there in the presence of a crowd of horrified spectators.
This and many other instances may serve to show the persecuting spirit of a church which had arrogated to itself a dominion over the consciences of men, and dared to propagate a religion of fear as the religion of Christ. After the Reformation, which had now begun, the same persecuting spirit was manifested by the Church of England; and many suffered here for their nonconformity to the Establishment. Several other martyrs were burnt in Norwich during the same reign, and in 1539, one William Leyton, a monk of Eye, in Suffolk, was burnt here, for speaking against a certain idol which used to be carried about in procession at Eye; and for asserting that the sacrament ought to be administered in both kinds.
In the same year peace and amity were settled between the church and the city on a much more stable foundation than had been previously effected, by an arrangement as to jurisdictions of the authorities.