The heyday of Norfolk antiquarian scholarship was not during the 1730s and 1740s when Francis Blomefield began to compile and publish the fascicles of his monumental history of the county, but rather in the two decades immediately before when many of the materials upon which it was based were being collected by a number of different scholars.

In a letter written in 1725, Thomas Tanner, the Chancellor of Norwich Diocese, refers to himself, to John Kirkpatrick, and to Benjamin Mackerell as "a little Society of Icenian Antiquaries [which] may attend you our President at Witchingham". The note was written to Peter Le Neve, the first President of the revived Society of Antiquaries. Le Neve was well known in antiquarian circles to be compiling a detailed topographical history of Norfolk, and had already devoted nearly thirty-five years to collecting the necessary materials.¹ His manuscript collections were later to be described as "the greatest fund of antiquities for his native county that ever was collected for any single one in the kingdom".2

Le Neve was not working entirely on his own however. For many years he employed an amanuensis, Thomas Allen, who helped him to organise the vast collection, and dissect the collections of other earlier antiquaries into his crude 'filing system'.3 Le Neve also benefited from the work of the other Icenian antiquaries, with whom he corresponded and exchanged notes. John Kirkpatrick was making substantial manuscript collections for the history of the city of Norwich,4 whilst Thomas Tanner had amassed an equally valuable collection of manuscripts relating to the ecclesiastical history of the diocese and was revising his monumental Notitia monastica. Most of all Le Neve was assisted by Benjamin Mackerell, an antiquary from Norwich, who had opportunity to travel around the county and visit the parish churches.5

One other noted antiquary from this group was somewhat younger than the other members. When, about 1710, Peter Le Neve had sought a guide to the antiquities of the historic borough of Thetford, a thirteen-year old schoolboy, Thomas Martin was recommended. The elderly scholar was so impressed with the boy's knowledge of the antiquities that Martin quickly became friend and protege.6 It was on Le Neve's recommendation that Martin was awarded a Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries in 1718, when he was only twenty-one. Thereafter, as an attorney working in Thetford, Martin was always on the look out for documents and information relating to the origins and early history of his home town and the surrounding area.7

Thus, during the period from about 1710 until the late 1720s, there was an active, although informal, group of antiquaries at work in Norfolk including some of the foremost scholars of their day. These men knew and co-operated with one another and between them they laid the foundations upon which the later historical scholarship of Blomefield, Parkin, and others, was built.

This fruitful period had come to an end by the turn of the decade. In 1728 John Kirkpatrick died, leaving the materials he had collected in the custody of his younger brother Thomas, and his valuable library and coin collection to the city of Norwich. The following year Peter Le Neve too died, having entrusted his enormous antiquarian collections for Norfolk to the charge of his literary executors Thomas Martin and Thomas Tanner, until such time as they might be made available to the public in a suitable repository. Soon afterwards Martin married Le Neve's young widow, taking the collections with him to his new home at Palgrave near Diss. There they remained for the next half century, and all thought of them being left to the public was forgotten. However, they were subsequently made available to Mackerell, Blomefield, Parkin, Swinden and many later historians.

The year 1730 saw the elevation of Thomas Tanner to the See of St Asaph in North Wales, and thereafter he was never again able to visit his adopted county, nor make arrangements to carry out the terms of Le Neve's will. Tanner had originally intended to combine his manuscript collections with those of Le Neve, for public use in Norwich, but the fate of Le Neve's collection caused him to change his mind.8 His manuscripts were therefore transferred to Oxford. Some were lost due to the sinking of a barge on the river Thames, and the bulk were left to the Bodleian Library following the Bishop's death in 1735, much to the dismay of the Norfolk antiquarian community.

By the early 1730s only Benjamin Mackerell out of the original group of 'Icenian' antiquaries remained actively at work on the history of Norfolk. It was left to the next generation, men such as Francis Blomefield, and Charles Parkin, with the help of Thomas Martin, to continue the tradition of local historical scholarship, and see the monumental collaborative history through the press.

Benjamin Mackerell is now the least well known of the original group of 'Icenian antiquaries'. He did not achieve the reputation of Le Neve, Kirkpatrick or Thomas Tanner during his lifetime, or since, and unlike his colleagues, he was never elected to the Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries. This was perhaps because he lacked the means to devote his life to historical scholarship, or had no patron who might secure him a suitable office in the church or College of Arms. He did however serve for a number of year as the unpaid librarian of the Norwich Public Library, where he did some excellent work in reorganizing the collection, seeking out bequests and donations, and preparing a new catalogue.

Except for the library catalogue Mackerell only published one work, a brief history of the town of King's Lynn, which appeared early in 1738, a few weeks before his death. However, It appears that he was also responsible for A new and accurate map of the county of Norfolk published in 1731, although his name is not recorded on this publication.

Benjamin Mackerell's collections of historical manuscripts were modest, particularly when compared to those of his contemporaries. Unlike Thomas Martin (who also published little) Mackerell did not play an influential part in encouraging and facilitating others to undertake works of historical scholarship. Yet he was a significant local historian in his own right, who was respected by his contemporaries, and has made a lasting and valuable contribution to local scholarship. A number of useful works by him remain in manuscript, most notably his two volume history of Norwich, which was completed and ready for the press shortly before he died.

What is perhaps most puzzling about Mackerell's career, is that whilst his best work was left unpublished, the history of King's Lynn which was published under his name was almost entirely the work of another man. Likewise the map of the county, which he claims to have drawn was also largely plagiarized from the earlier work of the surveyor James Corbridge. Similarly the history of Norwich, Mackerell's finest achievement, although his own work, was hurriedly completed in an attempt to undermine, or at least to forestall, Francis Blomefield's own history of the county.

Relatively little information is available about Mackerell's family and early life, and his date of birth is likewise not known. He appears to have been the second son of Alderman John Mackerell, a prosperous mercer of Norwich, who came to the city as an apprentice from Yarmouth in the mid-seventeenth century.9 His elder brother served as the Receiver General for part of the county of Norfolk,10. but Benjamin appears to have had no equivalent official position. He is usually described as 'Gentleman', and seems to have had independent, although limited, means.

Most of Benjamin's life appears to have been spent in Norwich, in the early 1720s he was close to Chapelfield House,11 and a decade later in the Market Place, "opposite to the Guildhall".12 However at least one (undated) surviving letter from him to the antiquary Thomas Birch was written from an address in London, and another written to Peter Le Neve seeks employment in the capital and offers to move his family there.13

By October 1735 he was describing himself to Blomefield as "infirm, and unfitt for every thing and at this present have the gout so much in my right hand that I can scarce hold a pen in it".14 Nevertheless another letter written to Blomefield the following December and one to Thomas Martin in August 1736 show that he was still actively involved in antiquarian research.15 The latter of these also indicates that he had recently settled in Horstead.

Mackerell died in March 1738 and was buried, along with other members of his family, in the chancel of St Stephen's Church on 1 April of that year.16 According to the Dictionary of National Biography, he married in 1723, and had several children. This was, however, either a second marriage or else the date is mistaken, for at least one of his sons, also named Benjamin, was old enough to act as his father's executor in 1738.17

Mackerell's career as an antiquary appears to have begun with a fascination for heraldry, and in particular the armorial bearings of Norfolk families. During the first decade of the eighteenth century, Mackerell made copies of hundreds of local shields, crests and mottos, taken from stained glass windows, funeral monuments, hatchments, carriage doors, and anywhere else they might be displayed. These were then recorded using water colours on pre-printed shield blanks, and eventually bound up in a series of works which are frequently referred to us Mackerell's Norfolk armory.18 Like most of Mackerell's manuscripts, and unlike the notes taken by many of his contemporaries, these works were painstakingly compiled and systematically arranged and indexed, making them useful works of reference both for their original compiler and others who came later.

The ideal position for a man with Mackerell's talents and experience would be a post in the College of Arms, but without a patron to recommend him, he was unlikely to achieve this ambition. However, within ten miles of Norwich, there lived the Norroy King of Arms, one of the four most influential within the College. This was the antiquary Peter Le Neve. In 1722 Mackerell sought an introduction to the great man, by his friend John Knyvett:

Presumably, Mackerell's offer of assistance with proposed Le Neve's history of Norfolk followed this letter.

Thus during the 1720s Mackerell undertook a great deal of historical research on Le Neve's behalf, primarily centred around Norwich, but also elsewhere, as he accompanied his elder brother on his rounds of the county in connection with his office of Receiver General.20 The work too account of the interests of both men. For example, two manuscript volumes, compiled in 1723-6, contained church notes, monumental inscriptions, together with fenestral and other arms in the parish churches of Norwich.21

In return for his assistance, Mackerell clearly hoped that Le Neve would ultimately use his influence to secure him a suitable post. At some time over the next seven years he even wrote to the latter at the College of Arms, to request as much.

However, Le Neve's patronage was not so easily acquired, and Mackerell was never successful in gaining any office with the College of Arms.

Despite the death of Peter Le Neve in 1729, Mackerell continued to collect local materials in his own right, and in particular details of funeral monuments from local churches. For example, in 1729/30, he compiled a manuscript account of the history of St Stephen's parish in Norwich, and in 1735/6 he compiled a brief historical account of the neighbouring church of St. Peter of Mancroft.23 Also, it was about this period when he appears to have become involved in map publishing.

The James Corbridge's map of Norfolk has been described as "a splendid map, made from the first important survey of the county, and issued in 1730".24 Previous maps of the county had been sketchy, frequently inaccurate, and usually derived one from another. Corbridge's map was expensive, as he had to recover the considerable costs of employing a team of surveyors to cover the county. Inevitably it also contained a few omissions and imperfections.

In 1731 two Norwich booksellers issued a rival, slightly smaller map, generally very similar to that of Corbridge, but without giving the name of any surveyor.25 Although it identified a few more places, it was nevertheless obviously pirated from Corbridge's work, and was not based upon an entirely new scientific survey of the county. Writing in 1737 to an unknown correspondent, Mackerell claimed:

Some few years ago I published a Map of Norfolk after Corbridge had done one, and notwithstanding his boasts of his Actual Survey I that sat in my closet could take a much better survey than he did when he left out many towns. Mine was published on Elephant Paper, without my name, only to be sold by Goddard and Chase. Not that I tell you this to boast of but only to acquaint you how I come to know all of the towns in the County which I have put in an alphabetical order in the margin.26

Mackerell had previously compiled an ordered list of Norfolk towns, presumably for Peter Le Neve, since the manuscript was subsequently in the hands of Thomas Martin.27 However this could hardly give him the right to claim he had therefore produced a better survey.

Like Thomas Tanner, Mackerell was clearly shocked and upset when, early in 1732, Thomas Martin married Peter Le Neve's widow, and the couple removed his manuscripts from Great Witchingham to Palgrave. This valuable collection contained quite a lot of his own work, and he was the single person most likely to benefit if the terms of Le Neve's will had been followed, with the collection deposited in Norwich, either in the Cathedral Registry or else the Public Library. Mackerell must have been even more upset, when in July 1733 he read the printed proposals for a history of Norfolk, clearly based upon Le Neve's collections, issued by Francis Blomefield, a young clergyman from Fersfield, who was a good friend and comparative neighbour of Martin. Mackerell apparently alerted the Norwich Mayor's Court to the malversation, but they took no action, for, as he later wrote, "they are no way bookish".28 In any event it was a difficult situation since Le Neve had not specified which repository, and merely left it for his executors to decide. Mackerell therefore held his tongue and awaited developments, whilst continuing to correspond with Martin, and borrow manuscripts from time to time.

In October 1735, once it became obvious that Blomefield's history was proceeding, Mackerell wrote to introduce himself to the young historian, and to invite him to his house when he was next in Norwich.29 Blomefield replied and the two men met in the November. Thereafter they shared a brief friendship and occasionally corresponded with one another. The fascicles of Blomefield's history of Norfolk began to appear from March 1736. However by the spring of 1737 a mutual jealousy of one another began to be apparent, and there was an open rift between them.

Mackerell felt that he should undertake the compilation of the histories of Norwich and Kings Lynn, using Le Neve's materials, leaving Blomefield to continue with the rural areas. During the period from March 1736 to July 1737 Blomefield had only published parts of his history covering thirty-three towns and villages closest to his home. One of the reasons for this slow progress had been a three-month period of sickness. However Mackerell pointed out that there were 822 villages in the county, quite apart from the large and historically complex accounts of the boroughs of Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn and Thetford. Even after making due allowance for Blomefield's sickness the rate of progress was such that the history would take thirty years to complete, and would prove to be an inordinately large and expensive work.

This was not perhaps an unreasonable suggestion, since Blomefield already had one collaborator Charles Parkin, who had taken responsibility, and was borrowing Le Neve's materials, for a number of hundreds in the west of the county. However, Blomefield rejected Mackerell's suggestion out of hand, and denied that he would need to produce more than three folio volumes. As a result the latter publicly announced his intention of proceeding with his own two publications in any event, although relying only upon his own materials, and without the benefit of those from the Le Neve collection.30

Blomefield refers to these incidents in a letter to Edward White of Great Yarmouth in October 1737:

The next important event in Mackerell's biography, is the one that is perhaps the most discreditable to his memory. It related to the publication, early in 1738, of his work The history and antiquities of the flourishing Corporation of King's Lynn in the County of Norfolk.32 This subject may have appeared a little unusual as Mackerell's first excursion into published history, since he had never lived in the town nor devoted much time to collecting materials relating to it. The reason for the choice is revealed in the description of the work by William Upcott:

The 'nameless person' was John Green, a little known antiquary from Lynn. He had compiled a number of manuscript descriptions of the churches and chapels in his home town, which were later bound together in a single volume.34 It was a transcript of this volume which came into Mackerell's hands, and which he published as his own work, together with his own very sketchy description to the town. The timing and the way in which the book was published was clearly intended as a means of retribution against Blomefield's own project. It did not approach being comprehensive or even an adequate topographical history of what was then one of the most important ports in the country.

Blomefield was aware of Mackerell's intentions before the appearance of this volume. By coincidence he was then borrowing Green's original manuscript from Charles Squire of Kings Lynn, and felt bound to write to the owner to re-assure him that he had not made it available it to Mackerell.35 Blomefield was later to acquire this manuscript volume for his own collection, and in 1749 he had the satisfaction of recording Mackerell's plagiarism for posterity by cross-referring the appropriate page of the printed edition.

The appearance of Mackerell's work did however demonstrate to Blomefield that their might be a separate market for discrete histories of the individual towns in Norfolk. Mackerell was therefore instrumental in Blomefield's decision (taken about January 1738) that he would re-issue those parts of his work relating to Thetford as a separate publication in quarto format.36

Whilst the publication of the history of Lynn was a rather shoddy incident, with little more than nuisance value to Francis Blomefield, Mackerell's proposed history of Norwich was another matter altogether. In 1737 Mackerell was far better prepared and qualified to write a history of Norwich than Blomefield, and already had substantial collections in his own right. He may also have been aware that his health was beginning to fail, and that his life was drawing to a close. In any event, the last six months of Mackerell's life was spent in a race to complete his history of Norwich and prepare it for publication. It was a race that he almost won, as is apparent from an advertisement appearing in the Norwich Mercury on 1 April 1738:

Presumably there were few subscriptions forthcoming, and the family were not willing to risk publishing the complete work on speculation, since nothing more is known of the proposed publication.

The existence of this completed work, and the threat of its imminent publication, must have concerned Blomefield, even after Mackerell's death. It was undoubtedly the reason why Blomefield decided about 1739 or 1740 to abandon his original plan of working systematically through the county, and rather devote the second volume of the history of Norfolk to his account of Norwich.37

The completed two volume manuscript of Mackerell's history of Norwich is preserved in the Norfolk Record Office.38 For its time, it is a detailed, painstaking, and well organised work, which is clearly in a state ready to hand over to a printer. It complements the more detailed account of the city compiled by Blomefield between 1741 and 1745. The first and largest volume was almost totally devoted to describing funeral monuments in great detail, but the second covered a wide variety of aspects of the history of the city.39 Had this work been published it would undoubtedly have redeemed the posthumous reputation of its author. Had the two men been able to co-operate with one another, they undoubtedly would have produced the finest and most detailed topographical history of any city in Britain.

In addition to his career as an antiquary, Mackerell is worth remembering for the work he undertook in his unpaid office of Librarian of the Norwich Public Library, between 1721 and 1732, and possibly later. This collection was already more than a century old, when Mackerell was first admitted to membership in 1715.40 The following year, he presented the library with a copies of Davila's History of France and Grimston's History of the Netherlands both in folio.41

The Norwich City Library was founded in May 1608, when the Norwich Assembly set aside three rooms in the New Hall in St Andrew's parish for the provision of a library for local preachers. No funds were made available for book purchases however other than the provision of a donor's book. Gifts of books were soon forthcoming, particularly from the aldermen and other city dignitaries, and by 1617 more than one hundred and twenty volumes had been added to the collect.42 Over the next three centuries, the library continued to operate, although its fortunes tended to wax and wane. After the initial enthusiasm following it establishment, the collection was neglected and the library shut up, until 1657, when it was revived by the Presbyterian Minister John Collinges.43 Similarly, a further period of neglect towards the end of the century, was followed by the appointment of an enthusiastic librarian, Joseph Brett, the reorganization of the collection and the publication of the first printed catalogue in 1706.44

Mackerell's early membership of the library coincided with a period when the collection was well used, particularly by the Cathedral Clergy such as Thomas Tanner, or John Jeffery, the Archdeacon of Norwich, or Humphrey Prideaux, the Dean. However at the same time there was a decline in the number of donations, and relaxation in the application of the rules to members. Mackerell later expressed his disapproval of the management of the collection, in the account of the library in his history of Norwich.

Mackerell's opportunity to institute reform came in June 1724, when he was selected to be the new Library Keeper.46 He sought first of all to tighten up adherence to the regulations by the membership, and secondly to encourage more donations, particularly from his friends. Thus his good friend and neighbour John Knyvett made a donation shortly after Mackerell took office. However, his greatest coup was in persuading his friend the antiquary John Kirkpatrick to leave more than two hundred early printed books and manuscripts together with his collection of coins and medals to the library. Kirkpatrick did however reserve his valuable manuscript collections towards the history of Norwich, for the use and enjoyment of his brother Thomas during his lifetime, and only thereafter to the city.47 Had the City Library also received the Le Neve as the owner had intended, and subsequently the Tanner manuscripts, it would have become an enormously valuable resource for the history of the county and of the East Anglian region.

The acquisition of the Kirkpatrick collection provided an excellent reason for the complete reorganisation of the collection, and the compilation of a new library catalogue. On Mackerell's recommendation, the Norwich Assembly set up a Committee to consider the library, which agreed to finance the publication of 600 copies of a new catalogue.48

In October 1730 Mackerell signed two official newspaper advertisements relating to the library. The first demanded that all outstanding books should be "returned forthwith, or else they [i.e. borrowers] would be sued for the same.49 The second, publicly announced the forthcoming catalogue and solicited further donations;

This advertisement was a partial success, since the donor's book shows a number of gifts between 1730, and the summer of 1733 when it eventually appeared. Mackerell himself donated a further thirteen titles in 1731.

Like much of Mackerell's antiquarian work, the printed catalogue51 was orderly and well executed; a model library catalogue for its period. The books were arranged into a broad alphabetical classification scheme, and each title allocated a shelf number. The catalogue was arranged alphabetically by author and presented into columns showing the donor's name, author, title, date (where known), format, class and number. In his introduction Mackerell mentions that the publication of Bret's catalogue in 1706 had given rise to a number of additional donations: "for which Reason 'tis hoped that publishing and dispersing this Catalogue may have its well-intended design effected." He also cited two other potential advantages of its publication. First of all that "the Magistrates, Gentlemen, Tradesmen, &c. of this City, ... by their seeing what Books are there Already, they may avoid giving Duplicates". Secondly that "those who are or shall be admitted to the Use of this Library ... save themselves many an unnecessary journey to it, in hopes to find a Book they may have Occasion for, and is not there to be met with".

Shortly before the publication of the catalogue, the Norwich Assembly passed a number of orders for the better regulation of the Publick Library, "upon Pain of Exclusion from the said Library".52 These new rules reflect Mackerell's wish for the better regulation of the collection. They allowed for the annual recall of all books, sale of duplicates, and election of a new Library-Keeper. They limited the number of books to be loaned and insisted on the maintenance of proper loan records. They also instituted an annual charge, and instituted additional charges for the loss or damage of books.

However, it appears that some other members of the library did not appreciate Mackerell's attempts at the better regulation of the collection. For a brief period during the reorganisation and recataloguing, Mackerell was ousted from office by some of the other library users. According to the earlier rules of the library, there was to be an annual election amongst the members for the post of library keeper. However like many other library regulations, this requirement had been ignored for generations.On 6 December 1731 a group of members met in the library without the presence of the librarian:

At the next but one meeting on 7 February 1731/2 another man, William Pagan, was elected Library Keeper. Unfortunately the minutes of the library do not provide any further information, and cease altogether within a year. However on the 15 April following Mackerell was signing himself 'Bibliothecarius' in the preface to the printed catalogue, and was presumably re-instated. He certainly still involved with the library in 1735.

The publication of Mackerell's catalogue only dealt with the books and manuscripts in the library's collection. However John Kirkpatrick's will had also left his coin and medal collections, although four years after his death these were still in the hands of John Custance, Kirkpatrick's executor. In particular, there was a very valuable collection of 380 Roman and old English coins, of silver, brass and copper. Having witnessed the fate of the Le Neve collection, destined for public use, but retained by the executor, Mackerell was determined that these coins should not go the same way. He had therefore announced his intention of publishing 'an account of Mr John Kirkpatrick's roman and other coins' on the title page of the catalogue. Although this work was never completed, Mackerell was still actively considering it in December 1735, when still on good terms with Francis Blomefield. He wrote a letter describing his plans and seeking the latter's advice on the cost of its production.54

The Kirkpatrick coin collection was subsequently delivered to the City Library where is was kept in locked cases. Unfortunately, they were later subject to neglect and pilfering, so that by 1840 everything of any value had been lost.55 Likewise, the library in general also suffered a prolonged period of neglect after Mackerell's death and the books were eventually handed over to the public subscription library.

Benjamin Mackerell remains a complex and somewhat shadowy character, although clearly a man with many talents. As an antiquary and local historian, his reputation has been largely overshadowed by those of his contemporaries, and his contribution to the study has been undervalued as a result. He is now remembered principally for the less events that took place towards the end of his life when he was perhaps an embittered old man. Similarly, as a librarian he did a great deal to preserve and develop a valuable collection, although in the end his efforts were not well appreciated either by his contemporaries or those who followed after.