In the previous section, much was said about common purpose of the citizens
of Norwich, of the sense of community,
and unified action against common enemies. However, we must remember that
this was only one side of the coin. The medieval urban community comprised
individuals who, like today's communities, had divergent outlooks and
attitudes, and whose personal ambitions and interests were not always in
harmony with each other. In particular we can see, especially in the
later Middle Ages (when our records become more detailed and more
intimate), a growing division between groups within the population, along
lines which can be described - if
not entirely
accurately as class interests. Historians have interpreted the
internal conflicts of this period as a struggle between
democracy and oligarchy, although this is
really too dogmatic an interpretation for a society that was more
concerned with the practical aspects of government (e.g. was it
financially efficient, did it treat citizens fairly, were its actions
to the benefit of the town?), than with its political character.
We have seen that Norwich, like most other towns, developed out of
simpler communities and that throughout most of the Middle Ages the
community was in theory at least considered to be the fundamental
source of authority, in terms of decision-making related to purely local
matters. Yet in any sizable community whose affairs are sufficiently
complex to require constant attention, a general assembly of residents
is not a very practical mechanism of day-to-day decision-making. It
was natural that this should be delegated to representatives. From
Anglo-Saxon times provisions had been made for small groups of
senior members of a community to have a special role in judicial
administration, and it is generally felt that a town's executive officers
would have consulted, if informally, on important decisions with others
of the group of prominent townsmen from whom they themselves were
chosen.
The identity of these few is not too difficult to determine. As
already noted, a key qualification for
citizenship was ownership of
landed property, as collateral for the citizen's financial
responsibilities. Since, in cases such as a failure of a city
to pay its fee farm or the amount
set for a royal tallage, or again
in the event of a breakdown of order, the king would seek redress from
the city representatives, it was advisable that they be those citizens
most capable of bearing the financial burden. The wealthier citizens
were also likeliest to be those with the most experience in administration.
The frequency of cases involving commercial transactions in the borough
court would prompt the participation of merchants as witnesses or
jurors. The need to bargain with royal commissioners concerning
tallages, and the ability to divide the assessment among citizens
according to their property, also required certain financial ability
and knowledge of property values. The "stewardship of the rich" was
considered a natural state of affairs by medieval townsmen. The wealth of
some of the leading townsmen is reflected in the latter half of the
fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries by the large donations they
made to the rebuilding of many of Norwich's parish churches, and
the expansion of their own residences (e.g. adding upper storeys)
to reflect their socio-economic status.
Those who were expected to bear the burdens of office, because "sufficient"
(as the medieval description had it) in experience and wealth, may have
felt it reasonable to use their power to further their own interests. The
charters they obtained from the king may have benefited the city as a
whole, but particularly themselves, by improving mercantile conditions and
by acquiring new powers that gave greater control over matters touching
the city. As part of this tightening of control, it seems, one of the
aims was to replace the unwieldy popular assembly with a more restricted
decision-making body.
Abuses of power also occurred, or were perceived to occur; although the
exception rather than the rule, it is in the nature of surviving
documentary evidence that we hear much of such situations. Complaints
by the Norwich community to the king are typical of those of other towns;
accusations against the city rulers included levying unreasonable taxes
and then putting the money to their private use, and attempts to
monopolize trade through private
transactions outside designated markets. The ruling class reacted
by trying to bolster their privileged access to power. They were
assisted in this by incorporation,
which gave formal expression to the principle of delegation.
There are various signs of this process of differentiation between rulers
and ruled in Norwich. We hear of a group of "magnates" in the thirteenth
century: men outside the tithing
system because so well-known that they needed no-one to vouch for
them. When these men appear in leet
records it is often to intervene in cases to persuade bailiffs to pardon
offenders. These were likely the probi homines ("upright men",
with bones gentz and prudeshommes being alternate terms)
who were considered reliable witnesses or suitable choices for cities to
send to parliament. The term crops up in a variety of circumstances. In
1213 and 1287 the king addressed documents to the bailiffs and probi
homines of Norwich. In 1327 the probi homines of Norwich
loaned the king 300 marks. Such references do not necessarily suggest
a specific group within the citizenry. More revealing is a reference
in the Bull of Excommunication (1273) following the citizens
riot against the cathedral-priory the
previous year, which was directed to the whole community, but especially
to the named bailiffs and 16 other citizens "by whose counsel the
community was at that time governed"; most of these were former bailiffs.
Ten years later we see the bailiffs and a group of 24 others witnessing
an important deed on behalf of the community.
That these and other pieces of evidence (too numerous to list here)
suggest the existence of an advisory council, whether formal or informal,
of members of the same social strata from which the bailiffs were drawn,
is bolstered by later evidence (1344) from the custumal which lists the
names of the "24" elected that year by the community. The same group is
seen on other occasions in that decade. Its duties were stated
vaguely (but therefore, by implication, broadly) as to take action in
business concerning the community. In other words, a city council. It
may be the same body which is found in the 1360s and later electing
the bailiffs. By this time, it had become the practice to summon
a few citizens from each leet to attend particular assemblies. Fines
were set for those failing to answer the summons, and there is evidence
of difficulty in raising a quorum, on occasion. There were different levels
of fines for members of the "24" and for craftsmen who were summoned.
It is difficult to say whether the goal of summoning specific citizens
was to ensure that a representative group be present to give assent to
ballival actions, or to respond to pressure from the
craft gilds for more say in local
government. Probably both. It was also decided at this period, to
counter complaints of unjust taxation, that tax assessments would
be made only by specially-elected committees made up of craftsmen.
We do not know to what extent the craft gildsmen may be associated with
the "middle class" (les menes gentz) who were complaining to the
king about unjust taxation by the bailiffs and "the rich men". Separate
complaints were made by a "lower class" (pauperes). There is no
indication that the burgesses were conscious of any clear-cut,
economically-defined class divisions at the time of
Domesday. Such arose
from property qualifications for purposes of tax assessment, became
more marked as economic growth furthered the prosperity of merchants, and
took on political implications as the wealthier citizens were accorded
the principal responsibilities of local government.
By the late fourteenth century there are clear indications of a sense of
class differentiation based on wealth. The Staple organization may have
contributed by fostering an elite of merchants, with divided loyalties
between their towns and the interests of the Staple. The Black Death
(1349) is another possible factor in encouraging elitism. In the
pre-plague years agricultural depression, contrasted with Norwich's
rising fortunes, encouraged greater migration into the city. The Black
Death decimated the longer-established families of the city and was
followed by a new influx of migrants from the countryside. Poverty
and ambition combined in some of these migrants to produce a measure of
lawlessness and disregard for city customs. This, together with
ingrained distaste for newcomers, encouraged the surviving urban
"aristocracy" to close ranks and assert superior rights. The Peasants'
Revolt, in whose local expression some townsmen participated, reaffirmed
to this group the need to take a firm hand in controlling "the commons",
and an equally-nervous national government was prepared to give local
authorities the powers they needed to do so.
The complaints of the middle and lower classes show that they wished
to challenge the ruling class' grip on local government, by reasserting
the fundamental authority of the
community and its right to be consulted
in the decision-making process and to have local officers accountable
to the community for their actions. Following violent protests against
the city government in 1371, the ruling class petitioned the king for
an increase of powers; in 1380 they were given the power to make
by-laws and to remedy existing local laws which they considered defective.
This grant was modelled on one to London in 1341, but was given to the
bailiffs and "24", without London's qualification of requiring consent of
the commonalty to any legislative action.
The 1404 charter seemed to enshrine class differentiation into
the city constitution, by addressing the grants to "mayor, sheriffs,
citizens and community". Authority was now vested in the two estates
of citizens and commonalty. To work out electoral procedures for the new
city officers, a body of 80 persons was created to represent the commonalty.
In 1413 this body was instituted as a Common Council, 20 men chosen
from each leet (by this time called "wards"), which would elect city
officers. Trouble soon arose over electoral procedure, when the ruling
class exercised a power of intervention it believed was accorded it by the
1380 charter. Open hostilities erupted, making it difficult to run
city affairs and the treasury ran out of money. After a great fire
destroyed large areas of the city in 1413, both sides came to their
senses and submitted their grievances to the arbitration of
Sir Thomas
Erpingham, a local landowner who was also an officer of the king and had
proven a helpful connection in the royal court for the city in the past.
The complaints submitted to the arbitrators reveal the attitudes and aims
of each party. The commons, describing themselves as the "greater part
of the citizens and community" protested that:
- The 1380 charter had been obtained from the king without their
knowledge or consent; in particular they objected to the omission of
the clause requiring community assent to governmental decisions.
- The ruling class had subsequently attempted to deny them a part in
the election of city officials, and had used a group known as le
Bachelery to use violence to disrupt elections.
- City rulers had abused their power by using public funds for
private purposes and by illegal trading practices (e.g. trading in private
places rather than the market).
The respondents, calling themselves "the sheriffs and 24 prudeshommes of
the city ... as well as others of equal status to those who have held the
estate of mayor, sheriff and bailiffs of the said city, like other
sufficient persons of the commonalty", counter-argued that:
- The 1380 charter was vital to the proper running of the city; rather
than reinserting the London clause, the term "community" should be removed
from the 1404 charter, since it led the commons to believe that "every
person of the smallest reputation in the said city should have as much
authority and power in all the elections and other affairs ... as
have the most sufficient persons."
- That their intervention in the disputed election had been necessary,
as the commons had contravened correct electoral procedure by electing
the same man as mayor two years running.
- That it was the complainants, not themselves, who used force to
disturb elections, and these disturbances that had obliged the respondents
to conduct trade in the safety of their homes rather than in public
places.
- That the government of the city was disturbed by confederacies,
congregations and alliances of the complainants. (Perhaps suggesting
the craft gilds were involved in the opposition to the ruling class).
A compromise was embodied in the Composition of 1415. Conditions were
laid down for the election of mayor, sheriffs, upper council of 24, and
lower (Common) council. The requirement for community consent to
ordinances was affirmed, but delegated to the Common Council. The 24
were to be chosen only from "sufficient" men (the mayor having the power
to veto unsuitable choices) and were to hold office for life, thus
placing them beyond democratic control. This group was to be the pool
from which the commonalty could nominate two candidates for the mayoralty,
with the decision between them being made by mayor and 24. One of the
sheriffs was to be chosen by the commonalty, the other by mayor and 24.
Although the commonalty had won back some lost ground, the effect was
essentially to entrench the concept of two separate political estates
and to limit popular participation in government. This settlement
was formalized through a royal charter in 1417. The city rulers attempted
to strengthen their ranks through an internal agreement (the Tripartite
Indenture) in 1424, by which, the mayor, sheriffs and upper council
(now called "aldermen") promised each other that all would present a
common front in future.
This, however, was not to be. Many of the wealthier citizens had
acquired property outside Norwich and had ambitions to rise in status
and join the county gentry. Their loyalties were divided, and their
politics pursued interests which were not necessarily those of the city.
The city, taking advantage of its new status after 1404, was trying to
extend its jurisdiction to lands outside the walls, which made some
enemies from local landowners. At the same time, some of Norfolk's
landed gentry were taking an interest in commerce and resented Norwich's
monopoly of commercial advantages. But they were denied direct
influence in Norwich by the stipulation, in the Composition of 1415,
that no outsider could hold any city office. So they had to exercise
influence indirectly, through political factions they encouraged
within the city. It appears this was already a worry for the city
rulers by 1415, since the Composition forbade any citizen to
take the livery of any lord while holding office. The Tripartite
Indenture was also an attempt to close ranks against partisanship
from within.
It was to no avail. In 1432, one of the most prominent aldermen and
a man with county connections, Thomas
Wetherby, supported by the city clerk and some other bureaucratic
officials, attempted to engineer the election of his nominee, William
Grey, as mayor. Thwarted, the conspirators were deprived both of
office and citizenship, but secured a royal commission headed by
their patron, the Earl of Suffolk, which restored their citizenship
and Wetherby to office. Wetherby continued, unsuccessfully, to try
to dominate future elections, then changed tactics and induced
local ecclesiastical dignitaries to bring charges over the city's
attempts to exert control over lands beyond the walls. The city
was convicted, as a result of a betrayal by its Recorder (an
officer who gave legal advice, often chosen from the gentry class),
John Heydon, another Wetherby supporter; he was then cast from office.
Meanwhile, the furious citizens rioted. When the mayor went to London
to explain to the situation to the king, he was thrown into prison and
a city attorney, acting on Wetherby's instructions, relinquished his
plea of defence. The king seized the city liberties, and for a while
Wetherby had a free hand in the city.
If the death of Wetherby in 1445 and restoration of the liberties two
years later eased the situation, it was only slightly, for Wetherby's
policy was continued by Heydon and former Norfolk sheriff Sir Thomas
Tuddenham, both followers of the Earl of Suffolk. The city was encouraged
in its resistance by William Paston and his friends. It had thus become
embroiled in a larger struggle between county factions, which was in its
turn one expression of the national power struggle underway that
eventually climaxed in the Wars of the Roses.
Wetherby, Grey, Tuddenham and Suffolk were all members of the Norwich-based
St. George's Gild (founded 1385, possibly to unite the local upper classes
in reaction to the Peasants' Revolt), whose membership included many
prominent lay and ecclesiastical figures from the city and countryside.
In response to city policy to either suppress or control gilds, St. George's
Gild obtained a royal charter in 1417, protecting its existence but
also giving the city authorities the power to dismiss gild-members for
misconduct. That gild members played an active role in the troubles
that plagued Norwich over the next few decades is indicated by Norwich's
strategy to try to resolve the disputes by bringing the gild over to its
side. In 1452, gild and corporation were amalgamated. By this agreement,
the mayor was to follow his year of office with a year as chief officer
of the gild; city aldermen were all to be gild members (as might Common
Councillors, if they wished); dismissal for misconduct from either gild
or corporation meant automatic dismissal from the other.
Again with a view to resolving the disputes dividing the ruling class,
the same year saw a further constitutional adjustment, embodied in a
royal charter. Additional powers (particularly judicial) were given
to the city officers. Significantly, reference to the "community"
disappeared from the terms of the charter.
These two settlements, along with new ordinances regulating the crafts
in 1449, served to restore solidarity within the ranks of the ruling
class, while widening the gap between them and the lower classes. Members
of the socially more respectable crafts were made eligible for office,
thus broadening the ruling class and weakening its opponents. The
way had been paved for the Closed Corporation of post-medieval times.