RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



image of the Holy Trinity in the cathedral 

 church ; 1 31. -jd. at St. Robert at the cell of 

 Holme ; and i>^d. at the image of St. Leonard's 

 cell, Norwich. 



The actual manors that were then held by 

 the priory were those of Hemsby, Martham, 

 ■Great Plumstead, Catton, Newton, Eaton, Field 

 Dalling, Great Cressingham, Taverham, Hindol- 

 veston, Hendringham, ' Sechford,' Thornham, 

 Labenham, Ambringhall, Thurberton, and 

 Aldeby, all in Norfolk. 



The historical or local incidents connected 

 with this priory are not very numerous, nor are 

 any of them of primary importance. 



The long-continued disputes between the monks 

 and the citizens began in the reign of John, when 

 there were legal contests as to the respective 

 rights of commoning on lands near the city 

 between the priory tenants and the ordinary 

 townsfolk. The charters of the monks are of 

 a much older date than those of the citizens, and 

 the priory resented the liberties granted to the 

 borough by Richard I and his two successors. 

 Hence they stood strenuously to what they con- 

 sidered the rights of their tenants in common 

 pasture, and more especially in tollage. This 

 so enraged the populace, that in 1232 certain of 

 the more violent forcibly entered the monastery, 

 robbed it of some of its contents, and set part of 

 it on fire. The king was then at Bromholm, 

 Norfolk, and sent the sheriff to hold an inquisi- 

 tion as to the affray. The burgesses refused 

 either to allow the sheriff" to hold an inquest or 

 to hold one themselves, whereupon the king 

 •seized all their liberties. The city soon sub- 

 mitted, and the seizure was released. The dis- 

 pute, however, broke out with fresh rancour in 

 1239, when the abbot of Ramsey, the provost of 

 Beverley, and four itinerant justices vainly en- 

 deavoured to make peace. Eventually Henry III 

 •came to Norwich, and a decision was given in 

 favour of the priory as having the older liberties. 

 The point at issue was that the monks claimed 

 to exercise all their liberties in their own juris- 

 diction and lands ; whereas the citizens claimed 

 to exercise their liberties on the priory site and 

 lands, as they were not specially excepted in the 

 ■ city charters.^ 



There was comparative peace between the 

 -ecclesiastical and civil authorities for about 

 twenty years, but in 1256 the strife broke out 

 anew. In that year the city complained that 

 the priory officers were taking landgable ^ in 

 the afternoon, when the city bailiff^s had taken it 

 in the morning. This led to a great disturbance, 

 but the courts again upheld the priory, for the 

 prior was able to prove that he only took land- 



' Blomefield, Hist, of Notf. iii, 46-7, where the 

 various rolls are cited. 



' Landgable was an old house tax, usually of \d. 

 Sox each inhabited tenement. 



gable in Holm Street, and other parts exempt 

 from city jurisdiction.' 



A grievous tumult arose in 1272, brought 

 about by the old cause, namely, the priory's claim 

 to the liberties of their own property within the 

 city. The citizens attempted to hold a fair on 

 9 August on Tombland before the monastery 

 gates, and, as this was priory property, William 

 Burnham the prior directed the servants of the 

 monastery to disperse the fair-holders. This led 

 to violence, in which some of the citizens were 

 killed. The city coroner held an inquest, found 

 the servants guilty of murder, and issued war- 

 rants for their arrest. Upon this the prior 

 closed the monastery gates, having procured a 

 large force of servants and tenants to defend it. 

 Certain of the priory party made raids upon the 

 city, which so enraged the townsmen that they 

 assembled in vast numbers, fired the gates, burnt 

 all the cathedral church save the Lady Chapel, 

 and almost the whole of the conventual buildings, 

 killed many of the monks and their retainers in 

 the cloisters and precincts, and sacked the church 

 and priory of all its plate, vestments, and books, 

 treating similarly the houses of the priory tenants. 

 The prior fled to Yarmouth, where, instead of 

 trying to allay the storm which was mainly of his 

 own creation, he gathered together an armed force, 

 and entered Norwich to the sound of the trumpet 

 and with drawn sword, and put to rout the citizens, 

 with the loss of many lives and much property. 

 Meantime the Bishop of Norwich called together 

 his clergy at Rye in Sufi^olk, and on 30 August 

 excommunication was pronounced against the four 

 bailiffs of Norwich, the town clerk, the members 

 of the common council, and others unknown, 

 and the whole city put under interdict. 



The king summoned a parliament at Bury 

 St. Edmunds on St. Giles's Day, and by their 

 advice proceeded personally to Norwich on 14 

 September, when the bishop, by royal request, 

 took off" the interdict from the city. The king's 

 justices, according to the city roll, condemned 

 thirty-four of the offenders to be drawn with 

 horses about the city till they died ; others were 

 hanged on the gallows ; the woman who first 

 set fire to the monastery gates was burnt alive, 

 and divers persons forfeited their goods to the 

 crown. On the other hand the prior was com- 

 mitted to the bishop's prison, and the priory with 

 all its manors was seized into the king's hands. 

 The king also seized the city and all the 

 liberties that had ever been granted it, and ap- 

 pointed wardens to keep the city in his name.* 



' Blomefield, Hist, of Notf. iii, 52. 



' Cotton's account of this terrible and long-sus- 

 tained affray {Historia Angl'uana [Rolls Ser.], passim) 

 is obviously one-sided. Blomefield (iii, 53-62) gives 

 a full account from the different chronicles, such as 

 those of Holinshed, Fabian, Matthew Paris, and 

 Matthew of Westminster, and cites from the old city 

 roll (Book of Charters or Liber Albus, 127). 



319 



