Page:VCH Norfolk 2.djvu/355

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