THE REGULATION OF THE BOOK TRADE IN NORWICH, 1500 – 1800
(scanned version –
beware there may be errors!)
DAVID STOKER
The control
exerted over the commercial life of the City of Norwich was not significantly
different from that of other large English cities except London, Oxford and
Cambridge. However a study of the book trade in the City has revealed a lumber
of interesting illustrations as to how such control operated which may be
equally applicable elsewhere in the provinces, and has also -brought to light
evidence of the existence of a seventeenth century 'Norwich Stationers'
.Company'.1
The key to the practice of any trade in Norwich, and in comparable
provincial cities. lay in the admission of tradesmen to the Freedom of the City.
Theoretically it was obligatory for any master to become a freeman before he
could trade, but this rule was applied more or less rigorously at different
periods. Although the dignity gave the recipient the right to vote. to hold
municipal office, and to bind apprentices, it could also involve him in some
expense and meant that his affairs were more closely controlled. For these
reasons admission was not always automatically sought by all tradesmen, and it
was only the threat of the withdrawal of the right to trade which forced many
men to accept their obligation. Having once been accepted as eligible, the
prospective freeman was required to make an oath before either the Municipal
Assembly or the Mayor's Court2
swearing to be a loyal subject and citizen. to pay all taxes and tallages, to
accept all offices for which he night be elected, to pay all lawful charges,
and to obey all the ordinances relating to his craft.'3
Admissions to the Freedom of Norwich were recorded from 1317 in a
register known as the 'Old Free Book', but the City ordinances governing entry
had been ‘copied into a custumal in 1308 and clearly had been in operation for
many years beforehand.'4 A second
register was in use from 1548 to 1713, a third from 1714 to 1752. and a fourth
from 1753 to 1818.5 The earliest entries give only
the names of he freemen, but those from the fifteenth century onwards record
the trades and the method by which the candidate had qualified for admission.
The conditions governing eligibility for admission were very. similar to those
in other provincial 'ties and in the Livery Companies of the City of London: a
man could become a freeman by patrimony. by service, by purchase, or by the
order of the governing body of the city.
It was the right of every legitimate son of a freeman to obtain his own
freedom by patrimony once he had reached a minimum age of sixteen years and
providing he was not serving an apprenticeship at the time. If the son was not
already following another trade at the time of his admission, he would be
entered under the trade of his father. Thus John Crotch was entered in the
Register as a freeman bookbinder in 1677, like his father Michael, but there is
no evidence to show that he ever practised the trade in the city. On the other
hand, if for some reason the son had been bound apprentice to a master in a
different occupation from his father, he was- entered under his correct trade
once the apprenticeship had been completed. but he was recorded as the son of
his father rather than the apprentice of his master. Although Martin Booth was
almost certainly a former apprentice of the stationer Christopher Berry.' Booth
became a freeman of this trade by patrimony and the entry in the register
merely recorded that he was the son of William Booth a weaver.6 If the father had died before his
son had reached the appropriate age, the onus was on the son to prove his
eligibility for the freedom by patrimony. An entry in the Mayor's Court Book in
1748 records that the bookseller William Chase appeared before the Court,
proved the freedom of his deceased father and was therefore admitted a citizen.7 This right of freedom by patrimony
was deeply entrenched, and at no time could it easily be denied to any man who
could qualify. Abraham Atfend, for example, never completed the full term of
his apprenticeship in London, but was nevertheless able to return to Norwich
and become a freeman stationer, by patrimony.8
Similarly there was no question of excluding undesirable characters living in
the City. One bookbinder, Michael Crotch,was admitted a freeman by patrimony on
4 January 1631/2, at a time when the Norwich Quarter Sessions Minutes indicate
that he should have been a prisoner in the City gaol.9
The second method of qualifying was through service, that is through the
candidate having completed an apprenticeship with a Norwich freeman, the
minimum duration of which was seven years. An apprentice did not automatically
take up his freedom on the completion of his term, often it was a question o
waiting until he was able to set up as a master on his own account. Thomas
Carre began his apprenticeship with the London stationer Nicholas Colman in
1582;10 both master and
apprentice moved to Norwich about 1586,11
" but Carre did not in fact become a freeman stationer until 1602, after
his master had ceased trading in Norwich."12 There were also many individuals who completed the
terms of their apprenticeships but who, through lack of money or for other
reasons, never became free. One such man was John Cotton who was bound
apprentice to the bookbinder Leonard Delyson in 1555, and who was listed on a
census of the poor of the City as still being in Delyson's employment fifteen
years later.13 Similarly it did
not follow that every freeman would be a master. Martin Booth became a freeman
in 1756. but did not in fact set up in business as a bookseller until 1759,
having worked for Christopher Berry in the intervening period.14
By an ordinance of the Norwich Assembly of 1512. all
apprenticeship indentures had to be enrolled before the Mayor within three
months of their having been sealed.15
In many cases this was done, but the failure of a master to do this does not
seem to have disqualified the apprentice from later becoming a freeman by
service, However, an apprenticeship served with a master who was himself not
free when the indentures were sealed would disqualify the apprentice from the
right of freedom by service, even though the master may have become a freeman
shortly afterwards. Two apprentice booksellers seem to have suffered for this
reason, Edward Martin in 1629 and William Oliver in 1662, both of whose masters
had become freemen soon after the beginning of their apprenticeships.16
Those indentures relating to apprentices in the book trades do not differ from those in other trades. The apprentice bound himself to his master for the period, and the master agreed in return to keep him, teach him the trade, provide him with either double wearing apparel or the equivalent sum of mo the completion of this period.17 With the establishment of local newspaper in the city in the eighteenth century, printers and booksellers would sometimes advertise for apprentices, stating their conditions. An apprenticeship with a prosperous or wel1 known master might also involve the payment of a premium by the boy's family. Henry Crossgrove advertised in the following terms;
THE PRINTER of this Paper being determined to take an Apprentice, any Person who has a Son inclinable to be a Printer, and sufficiently Qualified for that Business, may come to 'the Printing-Office in St Ciles's for further Information: And if he is a lusty proper Ladd, he will be accepted on more easie Terms18.
There was also the occasional practice for there to be a trial period
between the master and apprentice before the indentures were finally sealed.
Thus Luke Hansard, after answering a newspaper advertisement in 1765, was placed
on such a trial with the printer Stephen White.19
The option of purchasing the freedom was normally open to those men who
did qualify in any other way. This was the least beneficial method simply
because Municipal Assembly or Mayor's Court could charge as much for the
privilege as considered the candidate was able or prepared to pay, and even at
times would outrageously high sums in order to control entry into one
particular trade. Sums charged could range from the thirty shillings paid by
Nicholas Colman in three pounds six shillings and eight pence paid by Thomas
James in 1623, to ten pounds paid by George Rose in 1671.20 In the early eighteenth century was a feeling
throughout the City that too many outsiders were being permitted to settle in
the City and purchase the freedom. The Assembly therefore set minimum fines for
the majority of trades at rates which would discourage all he most prosperous
applicants. The minimum charge for booksellers was fixed twenty pounds,
compared with twenty-five pounds for mercers and three pounds for tinmen.21 As the newly introduced trade of
printing was not covered by ordinance. Henry Crossgrove was able to purchase
his freedom at the fairly modest price of three pounds four shillings and six
pence in 1710.22
It was not uncommon for men who were later to become freemen by purchase
to some years working as journeymen in the City. Jeremy Bromley worked for
bookseller Thomas Ollyett for a time before purchasing his freedom, and Edmund
Casson in turn worked for Bromley from 1608 until 1611 in Norwich after
completed his apprenticeship in London and before becoming his own master.23 There was also an unwritten law
that a stranger might be allowed one grace before being obliged to purchase his
freedom,24 although at various
and for various reasons the period of grace might be considerably longer. The
Anthony de Solempne. for example, is known to have arrived in the city in as a
refugee in 1567, but did not become a freeman until 1570.25 Similarly, Jeremy Bromley became his own master in
1607 but did not need to purchase his freedom 1613.26
The final method of becoming a freeman was by the order of either the
Municipal Assembly or the Mayor's Court. Such an order was given either to men
of great in exchange for services rendered. Thus Robert Scott, a bookbinder and
bookseller, became a freeman (as a grocer) before the Assembly in 1561 ‘and his
freedom was geven hym frely withoute eny mony paying for that he ded of his
gentylnes and goodwill bring in certeyne peces of Evidens belongyng to the of
Pakenhams in Shropham'.27
Similarly, in 1670 the Mayor's Court
Ordered that 'William Pindar Bookbinder shall have his ffreedome given
him for taking William Pindar (sic) a poore boy in St Pauls apprentice and
binding as many bookes to xxs as the officers fee'. It was however fairly
unusual for such grants of the freedom to be made, for the fees charged were a
significant item in the City revenues.28
It has already been mentioned that the laws relation to the freedom were
applied more or less rigorously at different times throughout this period. In
general these laws were applied less effectively in the eighteenth century than
beforehand, and' this time probably marks the beginning of the gradual decline
of the apprentice and freeman system of government in the City. Robert Goodman,
for example, was able to avoid becoming a freeman for twenty-five years between
1734 and 1759 despite the fact that he had built up quite a prosperous
bookselling business in the City centre. " On the other hand John Redwood,
another bookseller, was only able to avoid the obligation for ten years before
he was sued in 1736 and eventually forced to become a freeman by purchase.
" It is also noticeable that during the first decade after the
re-introduction of printing to Norwich no practitioners of this trade became
freemen, and although the City Corporation did business with the early,
printers it did not insist that they should. In fact, of the eleven known male
printers in the city between 1701 and 1720 only three eventually became
freemen, and two of these were also booksellers and so became freemen of the
stationers' rather than the printers' trade. Henry Crossgrove, the one man to
become a freeman as a printer, only did so as a result of one of the periodic
ordinances of the Assembly designed to reinforce the rules, and then only
needed to pay a small fee." Most of the early printers were probably able
to escape their obligations because there was no established vested interest
which might have wished to control the numbers;, practising the trade.
It is not surprising that no woman could be eligible to become a
freeman, but in certain circumstances women were allowed to follow trades, as a
concession rather than a right. Women traders could not, for example, bind
apprentices or partake of any of the rights or duties of citizenship. The
free-born widow of a freeman was allowed to continue her husband's business,
and there are several instances of this in all branches of the book trade in
Norwich. It is difficult to judge whether the widow was running the business in
name only, perhaps with the help of a son not yet of age or a trusted employee,
or whether she was left to her own devices. Margaret Chase, for example, was
clearly assisted by her son William Chase when running her newspaper, printing
and bookselling business between 1744 and 1750." On the other hand Frances
Oliver continued a prosperous bookselling business for thirty-seven years.
alone. after the early death of her husband, before she was forced to retire
through ill health in 1740." Susanna Collin's, the widow of the printer
freeman Collins. seems to have been helped for short periods by a whole string
of relations and by her husband's former apprentice Edward Cave; a fact which
lends weight to Cave's claim that he was unable to bear the perverseness of
this mistress. 3 4
Where there was no son to help the widow might continue the business
just long enough to obtain a satisfactory price before selling up. Thus Sarah
Goodman continued with her husband's bookselling business for one year whilst
arranging the sale of the shop to one man and the stock to another.'5 Mary, the
twenty year old widow of Henry Crossgrove, continued to have a share in the Norwich Gazette for only two months
before selling out to her partner Robert Davy. " There is also the
interesting tale of Anne Bowen, the wife of a bookseller who had recently
arrived in the City from London. She and her young children were left destitute
by the sudden death of her husband in 1790, but as the result of a public
subscription and the sale of her husband's shop she was able to set herself up
in a smaller bookselling business which lasted well into the nineteenth
century. 3 7 There is only one example of a woman being allowed to practise as
a bookseller even though she was not the widow of a bookseller. This was Mrs
Little Reeve, who was probably the daughter of the bookseller George Rose. She
appears to have inherited her father's business and was allowed to continue.
even to the extent of contracts for the supply of books to the Norwich
Corporation." It is probable that Little Reeve was the widow of a man not
connected with the book trade and this may have influenced the authorities to
waive the rules in this particular case.
Just because a man might have become a freeman of one trade he was not therefore automatically disabled from practising another if he found himself more suited to it. In theory a man could be prevented from following another occupation 9 the wardens of that craft considered that there was already too much competition, but this does not seem to have influenced the movement of workers to or from the book trades. In practice a man was probably only limited in the changing of his trade to those in which he could attain some skill or in which he had the resources to conduct a successful business. One of the most important booksellers of the first half of the eighteenth century was James Carlos who had started his career as a barber. and who had purchased his freedom of that trade in 1711. He followed this calling for nine years, and then began to sell books as a sideline. It was not until 1732 that he finally gave up his original occupation in order to concentrate only on the more profitable sale of books." Nevertheless his correspondence with the antiquary Francis Blomefield from 1733 to 1736 shows that he was a well established bookseller with many contacts amongst the London printing and bookselling trades."' Another interesting example is that of Edward Giles, an important bookseller and one of the major provincial publishers of the late seventeenth century. Giles enjoyed all of the benefits of a freeman of the City: he bound an apprentice who later became free by service. and he is recorded as having cast a vote in the 1710 election. Yet the only man with this name recorded in the register of freemen was a cordwainer. It seems very likely that Giles may therefore have become a bookseller as a result of turning his skills in leather from the making of shoes to the binding of books. Similarly there is listed in the churchwardens' accounts of St Peter Mancroft parish in 1686 a John Wilson,. shoemaker. and the following year and thereafter John Wilson, bookbinder,1"
Some movement from the book trades to others is also noticeable. In the
eighteenth century the practice of selling books by auction was becoming
popular in Norwich. and as the first auctions in the city had been arranged by
booksellers, " it was only natural that some of these men would develop
into auctioneers as well. Gradually, in the early years of the eighteenth
century, it became an accepted practice for farms, livestock, furniture and
other wares to be sold in this way, and many such auctions were arranged by the
booksellers and newspaper proprietors who had experience in this method of
selling. The three most important auctioneers of all kinds of wares during the
latter part of the eighteenth century in Norwich were men with book trade
backgrounds. William Chase the younger and Richard Bacon were both the
proprietors of newspapers who' also sold books and conducted auctions, whereas
Jonathan Gleed had started his career as a bookseller and then,: abandoned this
trade in 1763 in order to become a fulltime auctioneer.42
It was not unusual for men to practice two trades which were often
seemingly unrelated. Geoffrey Carter, who died in 1505, was described in his
will as a sherman (shearer of woollen cloth) and bookbinder, " and Anthony
de Solempne was given his freedom in 1570 as both a printer and wine merchant.
Similarly the widespread practice of provincial printers and booksellers
dealing in patent medicines and even in groceries was found in the City of
Norwich as elsewhere in the country." The, advent of newspapers in the
City also provided an opportunity for some: enterprising men to venture into
this new field, and not all of them came from book trade backgrounds. Thus it
is not surprising to find that Thomas Goddard should expand his bookselling
business to establish the Norwich Postman
in 1706, but it is interesting that two Norwich newspapers should have been
founded and financed by Samuel Hasbart, a distiller."
A seemingly connected but really quite different practice relating to freemen
working in the book trade is found in the late sixteenth century. This was the
practice whereby men who were unquestionably working as booksellers or bin were
admitted to the Freedom of the City as grocers. The term stationer was used
officially to describe the occupation of any man in the City before Elizabethan
period, and until the beginning of the seventeenth century the tem appears to
have been used only by men such as Nicholas Colman or Nicholas who had trained
in London and who were also freemen of the London Stat Company. The trade of
'bookbinder' is recorded in the City at least from thirteenth century, and
although it occurs several times in the earliest register of freemen there are
no entries for this trade between 1550 and 1593." During period several
booksellers and binders are known to have operated, principally Robert Scott,
John Clifford and possibly William Gilbert." Each of these were freemen
grocers. but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they this trade,
and there is a fair amount of evidence to establish their connection with
bookselling and binding. There may have been some kind of tradition some
members of the book trade, in which case there were probably so] men who sold
books but who are now recorded only as grocers. On the other this phenomenon
may have been the result of a gradual transition whereby so grocers had begun
to sell books along with their other wares, and had by this d begun to
specialise in this work. It is always dangerous to consider each trade! water-tight
compartment for, as noted above, groceries were sometimes sold as a sideline by
booksellers as late as the eighteenth century."
Having once qualified and become a freeman a master was still subject
tot rules and regulations governing his craft or trade. This involved a degree
of cons over the actions of any one member of a trade, exercised partly by the
C authorities and partly by his fellow tradesmen. These rules might concern
things as the quality of work, the number of apprentices allowed at any one
time, and the general conduct of businesses. Together, the freemen of any one
trade could also have considerable influence on the restriction of entry of
'foreign' workers to the trade. The regulation of the members in any trade varied in both the form and the rigour of its operation throughout
the centuries under discussion, and the degree of regulation also differed
considerably between different trades, with the more important ones tending to
be more highly organised and controlled.
In the early sixteenth century this control was exercised by the craft
guilds, which were in turn governed by various ordinances of the Municipal
Assembly relating to all crafts. " The guilds were re-organised after the
Reformation into Companies, many of which continued to elect wardens and to
present orders and regulations relating to their crafts to the Assembly for
ratification. By 1622 it was once again found necessary to revise the general
orders relating to crafts and to re-organise their government. In August of that
year it was therefore agreed by the Assembly that all occupations within the
City were to be divided into 'twelve Grand Companies' each consisting of the
members of one major trade and several lesser ones." Each of these
Companies was assigned to one of the twelve wards of the City, the two Aldermen
of that ward being ex-officio masters of the Grand Company. The allocation of
Grand Companies to wards was made in order of the social importance of the
major trade, the Company headed by the mercers being first, and was assigned to
Coslany, the most aristocratic ward in Norwich. The Grand Company headed by the
cordwainers being the twelfth, was assigned to Fyebridge ward, a poorer class
area. The Aldermen masters of the Grand Companies were given power to punish
members who offended against those ordinances relating to the trades in their
Grand Company and to be able to examine records of apprenticeship indentures.
As each of these new Grand Companies was made up of several lesser ones,
the freemen of each constituent trade were ordered to continue (or begin) to
elect their own officers; if they failed to do so within one month of each
election of the Mayor of Norwich, either the Mayor or the masters of the
appropriate Grand Company could appoint them. Each trade which had more than
eleven freemen had to appoint one headman, two wardens, and a convenient number
of searches. Those trades with fewer members only to appoint one headman and
one warden or, Alternatively, just one warden.
By the same articles it was enacted that every trade 'shall have a book
to be kept the headman and wardens wherein shall be expressed these general
orders as well the particular ordinances ordained, and to be ordained, for
every trade having at this time no ordinances in force. Such trades shall with
all convenient speed procure me fitting ordinances to be drawn up and presented
to the Mayor, Sheriffs, etc. for confirmation'. As a direct result of this
ruling the names of the officers for each found each year in the Assembly Books
from this date, and during the next few years long and elaborate ordinances for
the vast majority of trades entered.
The position of the book trade as the result of this re-organisation is
of interest, although it must be stressed that it probably had very little
effect on the overall pattern of trades within the City. There is no evidence
to suggest that the booksellers or binders ever formed any kind of a guild or
company before 1622, when they were included in the orders for the twelve Grand
Companies under the single name of 'stationers'. They were in the fourth Grand
Company known as the Apothecaries Company, which also included the trades of
upholsterers. tanners, carpenters. painters, and basket makers. The
Apothecaries Company was under the control of the two Aldermen of St Stephen's
petty ward. Within the framework of this Grand Company there was therefore
created a small company of stationers which comprised less than eleven freemen
and only needed to appoint one warden.
For various reasons it is quite clear that this re-organisation was not
welcomed by the Norwich stationers. The larger trades needed this kind of
control over their more unruly members, and it was in everybody's interest that
basic standards of workmanship should be maintained in such occupations as
weaving or baking. However, these factors would not have applied in the book
trade, which was very small and concentrated in one area of the City. so that
each man must have known the business of his rivals as well as he knew his own.
At the same time the City authorities do not appear to have coveted any r61e as
local censors. other than perhaps to co-operate with the London Stationers'
Company and the agents of the King's printers in their searches for illegal
books. For two years the stationers of Norwich appointed Edmund Casson as their
headman, but thereafter quietly tried to ignore the whole procedure." The
majority of the other trades annually appointed their headmen, wardens, and
searchers. and they very quickly presented the Assembly with long and elaborate
ordinances for the good government of their members and the punishment of those
who were to break them. Nothing more is heard of the Norwich Company of
Stationers for fourteen years: it appears to have lapsed, quite naturally, into
a completely informal body without the need of written rules or formal
government. Perhaps it became obvious to the City government that their system
was cumbersome and unnecessary for trades such as the stationers. for no
attempt seems to have been made by either the Mayor or the masters of the
Apothecaries' Grand Company to appoint any officers for them.
It was not until 1636 that the Stationers' Company presented any
ordinances to the Assembly for ratification. Long before this time almost every
other trade that' was recognised in the twelve Grand Companies had been working
under such ordinances. many of them having made additions and revisions to the
originals. It is not clear why the stationers eventually decided to draw up
such rules after having worked for such a long period without them. One
suggestion is that they were forced into doing so as a result of a general
tightening-up of the rules by the Municipal Assembly, but there is no evidence
of this in the proceedings of the Assembly, and the stationers continued to
omit to appoint any officers for the government of their trade. A more likely
explanation can perhaps be found from an examination of the ordinances and the
exact date when they were drawn up.
The 'Lawe for the Bakesellers' (as the ordinances were titled) states in
its preamble that the citizens of Norwich, 'vsinge the Trade of Bookesellinge
w'thin this City have desired that some good Lawes ordnances and Constitucions
for the better regulatinge of the said trade ... be made accordinge to the
Customes and Charters of this City'. The rules are however entirely concerned
with the restriction of entry into the trade to masters who had served an
apprenticeship in Norwich, and with restricting the employment of journeymen
also to those who had served an apprenticeship with a Norwich master. Unlike
the great majority of the rules and ordinances of the other companies, those of
the stationers make no mention of the regulation of standards of workmanship or
the conduct of the daily business (except so far as masters were prevented for
employing 'foreign' journeymen). It before seems that these laws were drawn up
more as a result of a desire to control outsiders from settling in Norwich and
working as stationers.
It may be that one particular incident sparked off resentment amongst
the men of the trade and finally brought about these ordinances. Five weeks
before they were presented to the Assembly a man named Abraham Atfend was able
to gain the freedom as a stationer as a result of a loophole in the law. Atfend
was the of a Norwich grocer and was therefore eligible to become a freeman
grocer by patrimony at the age of sixteen. He was not however brought up in the
trade of his father but was apprenticed to the London printer and stationer
John Grismond for eight years from October 1629. " He never completed his
London apprenticeship and returned to Norwich after six years, and so was not
eligible to practise as a master of this trade in London. If Atfend had not
completed an apprenticeship in Norwich he would not have been eligible to
become a stationer there (although he did not have been prevented from becoming
a freeman grocer once he was old enough). Atfend had not broken the terms of an
apprenticeship enrolled with the Norwich Corporation, and because he could
claim the citizenship as of right he was permitted to set up in business as a
stationer. This probably caused some resentment amongst his fellow tradesmen
and so five weeks later ordinances were passed which would in future prevent
such a manoeuvre.
Unfortunately the 'Lawe for the Bookesellers' gives very little
information about state or condition of the book trade in Norwich in the early
seventeenth century. rules related to anyone who 'shall take upon him, or use
the trade of A bookeseller in this City or kepe any open Shopp or warehouse for
the sale of Bookes a Bookeseller, other than for the sale of Prymers and
Horninge Bookes'. Presumably these two classes of childrens' books had, by long
tradition, been sold chapmen and by ballad sellers as well as by the
established book trade and, no doubt, by several other kinds of shopkeeper. The
ordinances also reiterated that which had for a long time been accepted, the
permission that a man's widow might continue the business until her own death
or remarriage.
After the introduction of these ordinances the Company of Stationers seems to have once again lapsed into obscurity, at least in so far as there appear to be no surviving records of its existence amongst the extensive City archives. In 1664 a man named William Nevill was permitted to purchase his freedom as a stationer for six pounds, thereby ignoring the 1636 ordinances. There seems to be no explanation for this unless he had been at work as a journeyman in the City before the ruling and his brother stationers in some way consented to his exemption. Alternatively it may have been that after only eight years the stationers' ordinances were being so ineffectively enforced that they could be ignored. However, 'these are merely speculations. This is the only example of the rules not being obeyed before they were revoked after twenty-three years by another fleeting appearance of the Norwich Stationers' Company.
The 1636 ordinances were almost certainly drawn up as a result of a need
to control entry to the trade at one particular time rather than as a result of
any long term need to regulate the trade in the City. After a generation these
regulations no longer served any important purpose and merely inhibited
outsiders from practising these trades in Norwich. In 1659 Joseph Cranford, a
successful bookseller from London, expressed an interest in setting up in
business in Norwich; because the 1636 ordinances were still in force he was
technically unable to do so. The most influential Norwich stationer at this
time was William Franklin, who was also a member of the Municipal Assembly as a
Common Councillor." Cranford therefore found some way, probably through
the agency of Franklin, of persuading, both the Norwich stationers and the
Assembly to revoke the offending rules. On the. 1 July 1659 the Assembly passed
an order to make null and void the offending articles for 'diverse reasons',
and on the same day Joseph Cranford was admitted to the freedom before them.
" Such machinations were never achieved without considerable expense and
Cranford was required to pay the very large sum of twenty pounds for the
privilege.
In retrospect it can be seen that the removal of this barrier was a very
good thing for the successful development of the book trades within the City.
All of the important booksellers of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries obtained their freedom by purchase, or were the apprentices of
masters who had, done so. It is also very clear that the Company of Stationers
in Norwich was probably more of a legal fiction than any recognisable body: it
was an artificial creation to fit into an overall pattern along with other
trades that had the need of, such a body. It was not a smaller local version of
the London Stationers' Company because it did not have the same function of
censorship and it was operating within a legal structure that was already quite
adequate to protect the interests of id members. Once the stationers stopped
electing a warden for their craft (about two years after they were formed into
a Company) it is very probable that they ceased to,, function as a Company. The
members retained latent rights, however, which they. could and did use in 1636
and 1659, when they considered the need arose. If the Company ever did keep a
record of its proceedings in the days immediately after id inception, this
record has unfortunately failed to survive.
NOTES
1. This article is
adapted from a chapter of my thesis for the Library Association ‘A History of
the Norwich Book Trade 1560-1760'.
2. The Municipal Assembly
was the nominal governing body of the City, consisting of the Mayor, Sheriffs,
Aldermen, and sixty Common Councillors. The very size of this body made it
unwieldy and so most executive decisions were made by the smaller Mayor's Court
which was made up of the Mayor, Sheriffs and Aldermen; and which met several
times each week.
3. The wording of the
oath differed at various times but its meaning did not materially alter.
Examples of the oaths are given in P. Millican, The Register of the, Freemen
of Norwich 1548-1713 (Norwich 1934) p.xi.
4. Millican, p.ix. The
entries were also recorded in the proceedings of either the Assembly or the
Mayor's Court 1 depending on where the oath was made.
5. The entries in the
first three registers have been transcribed and published in; J. LeStrange, Calendar of the Freemen of Norwich from
1317-1603 (London 1888); P. Millican, The
Register of the Freemen of Norwich 1548-1713 (Norwich 1934); and P.
Millican, The Freemen of Norwich 1714-1752,
(Norfolk Record Society 1952). Entries in these transcripts and in the original
registers (in the Norfolk Record Office) are easily traced and so individual
entries have not been cited in the footnotes below.
6. See Booth's
advertisement in the Norwich Mercury 25
Aug. 1759.
7. Mayor's Court Book 31
(1746-1758) f.64.
8. See below (page 135)
for details of the circumstances surrounding Atfend's admission to the Freedom.
9. The
Quarter Sessions Minute Book 9 (1629-1632) indicates that on 12 December 1631
Crotch was fined £10 and imprisoned until he could produce sureties. The entry
for 6 March 1631/2 states that he had to remain in prison, but he was freed 15
September 1632 having found £20 sureties. The crime is not stated.
10. E.
A. Arber, A Transcript of the Registers
of the Company of Stationers of London
1554-1640 5 vols. (Privately printed, 1875-94).
11. Colman's
name is found on the imprint of a ballad by Thomas Deloney in 1586 giving his
address as St Andrew's Churchyard, Norwich (S.T.C. 6564).
12. Colman
appears to have returned to London circa 1602. He was buried in the parish
churchyard of St Giles Cripplegate, London, 3 September 1603 (W. Miller, Printers and Stationers in the Parish of St
Giles Cripplegate 1561-1640 (S. B., 1966).
13. J.
F. Pound, The Norwich census of the poor (Norfolk
Record Society, 1972).
14. Norwich Mercury 25 Aug. 1759.
15. Millican,
p.xvi.
16. Martin was the apprentice
of Thomas James who became a freeman 10 Mar. 1622/3. Oliver was the apprentice
of Joseph Cranford who became a freeman 1 Jul. 1659. Both apprentices were
therefore obliged to purchase their freedom (Foreign Receiver's Accounts for
1629 and 1662).
17. One typical indenture is
transcribed in Appendix II at the end of this article.
18. Norwich Gazette 22 Sep. 1722.
19. J. C. Trewin, & E. M. King, Printer to the House (London 1952) p. 19.
20. Foreign Receiver's Accounts for the City.
21. Assembly Book 8 (1668-1707)
fol. 261. 1 Jul. 1703 (transcribed in Appendix 1).
22. Foreign Receiver's Accounts.
23. Muster Rolls 1599-1613 for the
parishes of St Andrew and St Peter Mancroft Military Documents, Norfolk Record
Office, case .3).
24. Hudson & J. Tingey, Records
of the City of Norwich 2 vols. (Norwich 2. p.xxxix.
25. A census of aliens drawn up for Archbishop Parker in 1568,
see W. Rye, antiquarian miscellany (Norwich,
1877) vol. 3. p.215.
26. Miscellaneous Military Documents.
27. Assembly Book 3 (1553-1583) f.74. 24 Feb 1561/2.
28. Mayor's Court Book 24 (1666-1677) f.155 26 Oct. 1670.
Goodman first advertised in the Norwich
Gazette 24 Aug. 1737. He died 175 (Norwich
Mercury 9 Jul. 1759).
Redwood arrived in the city from London in l726 (Norwich Gazette
9Jul.1726. According to an entry in Assembly Book 9 (1731-1757) dated 21 Jun.
1736 he was one of a number of tradesmen who were to be sued for failure to
become freemen. No record of the proceedings survives but Redwood became a
freeman 3 May 1731
See above p.129.)
William Chase the elder died in 1744 leaving a widow and a son who was
not age. William Chase the younger became a freeman by patrimony in Jan. 1748
an finally took over all aspects of the business from his mother in 1750 (Norwich Mercury 2 Jun. 1744, 24 Mar. 1749/50).
Norwich Gazette 29 Mar. 1740.
See the obituary of Cave, Gentleman's
Magazine Feb. 1754.
Norwich Mercury 19 Jul. 1760, 2 Aug. 1760.
Norwich Gazette 15 Sep. 1744, 24 Nov. 1744.
Norwich Mercury 23 Nov. 1790, 28 May 1791.
Norwich Postman 10 Apr. 1708. See also D. Stoker, 'The History of the Norwich Book Trades 1560-1760'F.L.A.
thesis, (Library Association 1975) p.428
Norwich Gazette 2 Jul. 1720, 2 Sep. 1732.
Norfolk Record Office Rye Ms. 32, Blomefield's letter book.
D. Stoker, p.175 et seq.
Ibid. p.361, p.380, & p.402.
Norwich Consistory Court Wills 196 Ryxe, 1505.
Eighteenth century Norwich newspapers abound in booksellers' advertisement offering all kinds of wares quite unconnected with the stationery trade.
T. Fawcett, 'Early Norwich Newspapers' Notes and Queries (1972) p.363.
The term 'bookseller' was in common usage in Norwich well before
seventeenth century. and is shown in the imprints of various local books. Howe
the word was rarely used in official documents until the eighteenth century.
when it also begins to be found in the registers of freemen.
D. Stoker. p.90, p.382, & p.432.
Groceries
in this context would be such imported items as tea or chocolate rather than
foods produced locally.
W. Hudson, & J. C. Tingey, The
Records of the City of Norwich 2 v (Norwich 1906-10) vol. 2. p. liv et seq. The only example found of a
member of Norwich book trade being connected with a guild is Geoffrey Carter
who left a legacy in 1505 to the Guild of St Michael, a guild founded by divers
artificer workmen'. See note 43.
Ibid.
p.liv. It is noteworthy that of seventy six major trades listed in documents of
this period neither bookselling nor bookbinding are includes p.310-312.
Ibid.
p.382 et seq.
See
Assembly Book 6 (1613-1642) for the period 1622-6.
Assembly
Book 6 (1613-1642) fol.321.
D.
F. McKenzie, Stationers Company
apprentices 1605-1640 (Charlottesville 1961) - under Atfield.
D.
Stoker, p.398.
Assembly
Book 7 (1642-1668) f.202. 1 Jul. 1659 (transcribed in the Appendix).
APPENDIX I
A Lawe for the Boke sellers
Wheres the makeinge of Bylawes and Constitucions in this City is not onely warrangted by the Customs of this City tyme out of mynde vsed & approved but also granted & Confirmed to the Maior Sheriffs & Coialty of this City by diverse Charters & grants heretofore made by div’se of his ma’ties most noble p’genito’ Kings & Quenes of this Realme, And forasmuch as the Citizens of this City vsinge the Trade of Booksellinge w’thin this City have desired that some good lawes ordnances and Constitucions for the better regulatinge of the said trade for the Com’on p’fitt of his ma’ties Subiects comeinge to this City, ffor the goodof the Citizens of this City & for the well orderinge of the men of the said Trade might be made accordinge to the Customes and Charters of this City yt is therefore ordered ordeyned & enacted by the Maior Shiriffs & Aldermen of the City with the Consent of the Comon Counsell of the said City in manner & forme foollowinge viz that no p’son or p’sons shall take vpon him, or vse the trade of A Bokkeseller, other than for the sale of Prymers and Horninge Bookes Except onely such as haue bene, nowe are, or hereafter shalbe brought vp by the space of Seaven yeares, or more, as an Apprentice to the said Trade w’thin the said City And except such widowe of such a Bookeseller as shall dye w’thin this City and who shall vse the said Trade dureinge her widowe hood And except such p’son or p’sons as shall at any tyme hereafter marye and take to wife any such widow of a Bookeseller and shalbe admitted to the freedome of this City And after such freedome obteyned shall vse the said Trade w’thin this City vnder payne that ev’y p’son offendinge in the p’misses contrary to the true intent & meaninge of this p’sent ordynance shall forfeit & pay to the Chamberlayn of this City for the tyme beinge for ev’y such offence viz for every moneth wherein hee shall so offend fforty Shillings of lawfull English mony. And yt is also further ordeyned enacted & agreed as aforesaid that yf ab p’son or p’sons vsinge the Trade of a Bookeseller in this City shall at any tyme hereafter take into his service, Reteyne, Hire or sett on worke any Journeyman or Jorneymen w’ch hath not bene brought vp or served as an Apprentice w’thin this City. That ev’y such p’son so offendinge shall fforfeit & pay to the Chamberlayn of this City for the tyme beinge for every moneth wherein hee she or they shall reteine hire or sett on worke any such Journeyman not haueinge served and bene brought vp as aforesaid ffor ev’y moneth wherein any such Jurnyman shall be so sett on worke or hired or reteyned to worke, or doe any thinge in the Trade of Bookesellinge contrary to the true intent & meaninge of this p’sent ordynance fforty Shillings of lawfull English mony.
And yt is further ordeyned Constituted & established by the Maior Sheriffs & Aldermen of the said City of Norw’ch w’th the Consent of the Comon Counsell of the same City that all ffines forfeitures & sumes of mony wch shalbe forfeited & payable accordinge to the true intent and meanynge of these ordynances before mencyoned by any p'son or p'sons offendinge shal be levyed of the offenders by distresse to be taken of the offendo's goods by the officer of the maior of this city for t@ the tyme beinge or otherwise by Action or Actions of debt or pleint to be brought & p'secuted in the name of the Chamberlyn of this City for the tyme beinge in the Court of o r sov'reigne Lord the Kinge holden in the Guildhall of this City before the Sheriffs of this City f or the tyme beinge wherein no wager of lawe or essoyne shalbe allowed to the defendant, And that the said Chamberlyn shall vpon ev'ry Recovery by him to be had in that behalfe be allowed his ordynary Costs of sute And that all Sumes of mony so to be recovered, the ordynary Costs of sute beinge deducted, and all other sumes of mony w'ch shalbe payd w'thout sute by any delinquent for or in respect of any offence in the f oremencioned ordynances exp'ssed by submission or Composition shalbe devided into two equall parts wherof the one part shalbe paid to the Maior of this City for the tyme beinge to be putt into the Hamper f or the vse & benefitt of the poore of the said City and the other halfe shalbe paid to such p'son & p'sons as shall first giue notice of the offence for w'ch such forfeiture shall growe due, and shall followe or p'secute such sute w'th effect in the name of the Chamberlyn of this City, or shall procure payment of any sumes of mony to be forfeited or payable for any such offence or offences as aforesaid by submission or Composition.
(Assembly Book 6 (1613-1642)
f ol. 321. 26 Mar. 1635).
An order to make void & null an Act about the sale of Bookes
Whereas there was heretofore at anAssembly holden the 21th day of March
1635 an Act of Comon Counsell passed that no pson shall use the trade of booke
selling in this Citty or keepe any open shopp for the sale of bookes as a booke
seller other than for the sale of primer & horning bookes except onely such
as have bene there were after should be brought vp by the space of Seaven
yeares or more as an apprentice to the said trade wthin the said Citty It is
now ordered by one whole assent & consent that for diverse reasons them
moveing the said Act of Comon Counsell shall from henceforth be null & made
void.
(Assembly Book 7 (1642-1668) fol. 202. 1 Jul. 1659).
Minimum fees for the grant of the Freedom of the City by purchase
Bookseller
It is constituted ordered
ordained & decreed at this p’sent Assembly that no fforreigner or p'son or
p'sons of the Trade and Occupac'on of a bookseller which at any time hereafter
shall come to the Chamberlains Councill of this City for the time being or the
Major part of them to be made ffree of the s'd City by redemp'con or 'e of
Twenty purchase shalbe admitted to his or their ffredome vnder the sum pounds
of lawfull English money first paid or served to be paid to the Maior Sheriffs
Citizens and Co'ialty of the City of Norwich or their successo' or their Rec':
on their behalf for the time being.// (Assembly Book 8 (1668-1707) fol.261. 1
Jul. 1703.)
APPENDIX 11
An Apprenticeship Indenture
d qd vicesimo die Septembris
1680/ Will'rn Pinder of ye City of Norwich stationer and Booke Binder Inrolleth
an Indenture Beareing date ye Second day of August 0/ sealed by Will'm Pinder
sonne of ye said Will'm Pinder whereby ye said ill'm Jun Putteth himselfe
App'ntice to ye said Wi]Iiam from ye day of ye said denture untill ye full End &
Term of seven yeares dureinge all wch Term ye said ill'm Senr covenanteth to
teach ye said William Jnr: in ye science and occupacen a stationer & Booke
Binder findeing unto him sufficient meat Drinke Lodging & pparell dureing
all of ye said term and in ye End there of to give him double pparrell to and
for his Body meet & convenient.
Assembly Book 4 (1583-1587)
fol. 179 20 Sep. 1680)