Social State of the City from the Fourteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries.
BEFORE we proceed to chronicle the leading local events of the 18th
century, it may not be altogether unprofitable to review briefly the
social state of the city during some 300 or 400 years preceding. In
doing this we may now and then have to advert to matters to which we have
alluded already; but at the risk even of an occasional repetition, it
will be worth while—in order to help our readers to appreciate subsequent
improvements at their proper worth—to consider a little more minutely
than we have yet done, the physical circumstances under which the
citizens have lived in former centuries, and the various influences to
which they have been subject.
A “Chapter of Horrors” might be written, descriptive of the plagues,
pestilences, famines, floods, and fires, which devastated the city and
county for 300 years. It would seem as if the darkness and gloom of the
physical world corresponded at times with the superstitions and vices of
the people. The dark ages were ages of terrible calamities, and England
was then a terrible country to live in. Plagues and pestilences now and
again desolated the whole land, and Norfolk and Norwich did not escape
the ravages of diseases emphatically named the “Black Death.”
Exaggerated accounts must have been given of the desolations caused by
these various scourges, or else both city and county must have more than
once lost the great part of their inhabitants.
Blomefield is responsible for very dark pictures indeed; but his
statements, right or wrong, have been endorsed by later compilers of
local history. We are told, by one writer, for instance, that:—
“In 1348, the plague, which had lately ravaged the greatest part of
the known world, broke out in this city; wherein there died,
according to the most credible accounts, within the space of twelve
months, upwards of 57,000 persons, besides religious and beggars; and
this will not appear very surprising, when we consider that in some
places not one-fifth part of the people were left alive, and that
Norwich was more populous at that time than it has ever been since.
It then contained sixty churches, besides conventual ones, within the
walls; and the large parishes of Heigham and Pockthorpe, and the
large chapel of St. Mary Magdalene without them.”
Such is the astounding statement in a local history printed by John
Crouse, in 1768. Where he got his “credible accounts” he does not say,
and he moreover gives the statement of the Domesday Book, that in 1086,
the city contained only 1565 burgesses; so that the population must have
increased in 250 years to a most fabulous extent, for 57,000 persons to
have died of the plague in 1348. In 1377, a census was taken of some
large towns, and Norwich was then found to contain 5300 people. But in
truth the number, 57,000, very probably applied to the whole diocese, for
the same local history states:—
“This severe visitation was not confined to the city alone, but
cruelly extended itself all over the diocese; so that in many
monasteries and religious houses, there were scarce two out of twenty
left alive. From the register book it appears that in the course of
the year there were 863 institutions. The clergy dying so fast, that
they were obliged to induct into livings numbers of youths who had
but just received the tonsure.”
The register in question was, no doubt, one of the whole diocese.
In 1361 there happened a great dearth, attended by the plague; this was
called the second pestilence. And on January 15th, in the same year,
there arose so furious a storm of wind from the south west, as to throw
down the tower of the cathedral, which falling on the choir demolished a
great part of it. The storm raged violently for six or seven days, and
was succeeded by a prodigious fall of rain, which occasioned incredible
damage by inundations. Where the inundations occurred is not stated in
the local history, but if in the city the damage must have been great
indeed.
In 1369, the plague broke out afresh and carried off great numbers of
people very suddenly. Yet in 1371, the citizens were commanded to
furnish the king with a good barge, sufficiently equipped for war to
serve against his enemies, the French and Spaniards. This does not
indicate that the city had been almost depopulated only a few years
before. Indeed, during all this time the citizens had been doing their
best by legal contests to hinder Yarmouth being made a staple town,
though they did not succeed.
About 1390 a great mortality broke out in the city, occasioned by the
people eating unwholesome food; and this not so much from a scarcity of
corn as of money to purchase it. The plague raged greatly in Norfolk and
in many other counties, and was nearly equal in severity to the first
great pestilence. So states the local narrative which we have just
quoted; and yet, according to the census of 1377, as already stated, the
population was only 5300! What reliance then can be placed on such
accounts? The calamities recorded were, no doubt, sufficiently awful
without the aid of exaggeration.
In 1578, the plague again broke out, and continued to rage nearly two
years; destroying 2335 natives and 2482 strangers. During the infection,
it was ordered that every person coming from an infected house, should
carry in his hand a small wand two feet in length; and that no such
person should appear at any court or public place, or be present at any
sermon; and that the inscription, “Lord have mercy on us,” should be
placed over the door of every infected house, and there remain until the
house had been clear of the infection for one month at least.
In 1583, the plague broke out once more, and 800 or 900 persons died of
it, chiefly “strangers;” and in 1588, the same disease again raged in the
city, but not very violently. Notwithstanding all these awful
visitations, no proper sanitary measures appear to have been adopted.
In 1593, there happened so great a drought, that many cattle perished for
want of water; but it is stated that in the year following it scarcely
ceased raining, day or night, from June 21st to the end of July.
In 1602, the plague again raged with almost unprecedented fury, there
dying thereof 30,578 in London, and 3076 in Norwich. This visitation,
moreover, was attended with so great a scarcity, that wheat sold for ten,
rye for six, and barley for five shillings a bushel—a very high price in
those days; and the poor in the city must then have been in a dreadful
state of destitution. Again, in the summer of 1609, the city was visited
by its former scourge, though but few died of it. The mayor received a
letter from the privy council to keep up the ancient strictness and
severity of lent, as if the poor had not fasted long enough!
In 1625, we find that something like sanitary measures were begun. On
July 12th of that year, the mayor received a commission authorising the
body corporate to levy a tax on all the inhabitants, to be applied
towards scouring the ditches, and the removal of all nuisances in and
about the city, the better to prevent the spreading of the plague which
had lately broken out in Yarmouth, having been occasioned by the arrival
there of some infected persons. These precautions not having the desired
effect, the Black Tower, then on Butter Hills, was fitted up for the
reception of the afflicted poor. In September, about 40 died in a week,
and the plague raged till May, 1626, when it began to abate. As many as
1431 persons died while the disease continued.
In 1646, the plague again made its appearance in Norwich, but its effects
were not very fatal. In 1665, however, it broke out once more, and made
dreadful ravages; carrying off 2251 persons. During its continuance, at
the instance of the County Magistrates, the Market was held in the Town
Close, and the City was not quite cleared of the disease till the end of
1667. The Bishop then ordered September 19th to be observed as a day of
general thanksgiving to God for His great mercy in putting a stop to the
pestilence. All quite right and proper, but had there been more
cleansing as well as praying, the city might not have suffered so
severely. The Corporation had utterly and entirely ignored its chief
duty in regard to all sanitary rules and regulations. There was scarcely
an apology for a system of drainage, and never a sufficient supply of
water. The poor people were cooped up in narrow yards, courts, and
streets, and, on account of high prices, could seldom obtain wholesome
food. They had a terrible revenge in these direful plagues, which
destroyed the rich in their fine houses, as well as the poor in their
hovels.
Some idea of the social state of the city during this period may be
formed from a few gleanings from the City Records, from which it will
appear, that from the 14th till the 18th century, though the authorities
neglected to improve the sanitary condition of the city, they took great
care to protect the people from frauds of brewers, traders, and
manufacturers, who were at least strongly suspected of being addicted to
dishonest practices. Mr. R. Fitch, of this city, has published some
interesting notices of “Brewers’ Marks and Trade Regulations.” These are
of great historical interest, and we therefore make no apology to our
readers for reproducing the following extracts:—
“Scarcely a trade was exempt from these regulations, some of which
were attended with espionage so peculiar and strict as to lead us to
wonder why public opinion, although in those days admittedly weak,
was not so far aroused as, by its own voice, to free the community
from some of the petty, if not the heavier restrictions.
“Brewers, we discover, had especial symbols of their own, which they
registered when licensed to follow their occupations, and it was also
found that these marks were borne by successive followers of the same
trade, until the business of succeeding firms became extinguished by
the death or retirement of the last of a long line of brewers, and
then only did the particular symbol fall into disuse.
“From the year 1606 to 1725, no less than fifty separate marks have
been found in the City of Norwich, some of them being borne as
symbolical of a particular brew-house, by eight or nine persons, who
followed each other in one and the same occupation. These marks were
noted in a variety of documents, belonging to the Corporation, one
preserved in their muniment room. They appeared, for instance, in a
‘Brewer’s book,’ or the book of the ‘Clarke of the Market,’ and in
books recording the proceeding of city courts and assemblies. The
following extracts taken from the ‘Brewers’ Book’ relate to the
government of all brewers’ houses and tippling houses, fully bearing
out the opinion previously expressed as regards the strictness of the
laws by which such places were regulated.
“‘The enquirie for Brewers to ye Booke of ye Clarke of ye Market, and
is taken out of his booke:—
“‘Items, to be enquired of Ale brewers; whether they brewe their ale
of anie maner of fustie, dustie, or wealved maulte, mixed or mingled
with any hoppes, roson, chalke, or any other noisome or unwholesome
corn or liquor.
“‘And yt they make noe rawe ale or long roping ale, keeping their Ale
fixed, yt is to say, twelve pence highning and twelve pence lowning
in a quarter of maulte. For when ye mace buy a quart of maulte for
two shillings, then ye may sell a gallon of ye best ale for an halfe
penny; three shillings, three farthings; foure shillings, foure
farthings; five shillings, five farthings; six shillings, six
farthings; seven shillings, seven farthings; eight shillings, eight
farthings; nine shillings, nine farthings; and so forth and no
further.
“‘And to sell a quarte of the best ale for a halfe penny, with
measures true sized, and sealed according to the King’s standard, and
doing the contrarie to be punished.
“Thus it appears that brewing was a very ancient business in this
city in the 16th century, and the best ale was sold for a half penny
per quart before the iniquitous malt-tax was imposed.
“The following are extracts from the statutes, &c.
“‘Statute 23, Henry 8. That no Brewer shall hence forth occupie ye
misterie or craft of coupers, no make any barrells, &c., wherein they
shall put their beer or ale. Penalty 3d. 4d. for every vessell.
“‘Every vessell to be made of seasonable wood, and marked with ye
coupers’ mark, ye contents of every vessell for Beer, as above said
or more.
“‘Coupers not to inhance ye prices of vessells, but keepe this rate,
on forfeit of 3d. 4d. for every vessell, defective or enhanced, viz.
Barrell for beer, ixd.; Kynderkyn, vd.; Ferkyn, iijd.; Ale Barrell,
xvjd.; Kynderkyn, ixd.; Ferkyn, vd. Brewers not to put Beer or Ale
to sale but in Barrells, &c., conteyning as above said. And to sell
at such prices as affixed by ye Justices of ye Peace of ye County, or
Maior, Sheriff, or other head officers of City, Borough, and Town
Corporate, under forfeiture as above, under Beere brewers out of
Clarke of Markets book, half to ye king, and half to him who will
sue.’”
“No doubt other traders, as well as brewers and keepers of tippling
houses, were regulated by corresponding laws. Indeed this appears
from the records and orders in the books of the corporate assembly.
In the 8th year of Edward IV., the mayor issued an order in the name
of the king, that brewers were not to sell yeast, but to give it away
to whoever wanted it, as it had been freely given away time out of
mind. By the 4th and 5th of Philip and Mary, it was enacted that:—”
“No bere bruer to brewe nor sell to any typpler, or other person, any
bere called doble doble bere, but only two sorts of bere, viz., best
bere and small bere, upon forfeit of ye beer and cask.”
“According to the Brewers’ Assembly book, 30th July, 1657, the
brewers agreed, by reason of 2/6 excise per barrel, that they would
not sell any strong beer to any ale-house keeper, under 12/- per
barrel of beer, and excise. It was also agreed in August, 1657, that
ale-house keepers might sell one wine quart of strong beer for a
penny. There were three sorts of beer of different prices, viz.,
4/-, 6/-, and 10/- per barrel, beside excise. The brewers of beer
petitioned strongly against the tax of 2/6 per barrel, as a great
hardship and injustice. The names of 40 brewers are recorded in this
city, from 1600 to 1725.”
“Brewers’ marks are entered as early as 1606, and as late as 1725.
The mark, No. 1, John Boyce, was first borne by Henry Woodes, in
1606, and after him by five successive brewers, ending with this John
Boyce, in 1725. As yet, the regulations relating to trade marks
generally are very imperfectly known, leaving a wide field of
research to those who desire further information. The same marks
passed from one brewer to his successors, and they were held in all
their integrity, till within a century and a half of our own time.
It would be an important contribution to local history, if all the
rules relating to trade could be collected and elucidated.”