¹ Salter, H.E., Survey of Oxford, ed. Pantin, W.A. and Mitchell, W.T. (Oxford Historical Society NS 14, 1960, and 20, 1969)Google Scholar; Horrox, R., The Changing Plan of Hull 1290–1650 (Kingston-upon-Hull, 1978)Google Scholar; Keene, D., Survey of Medieval Winchester, Winchester Studies II (Oxford, 1985), 451 ff.Google Scholar; Keene, D. and Harding, V., Historical Gazeteer of London Before the Great Fire. 1 Cheapside (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar; Norfolk Record Office (hereafter NRO), MC 146/52 684X5.

² Most surveys and enrolments of private urban documents at this date were primarily concerned with freehold interests. Generally urban freeholders were in a similar position to a modern property owner, able to buy, sell, let out or leave their property by will. Life tenants were also freeholders but so few leases for life were enrolled at Norwich at this time that they should not affect the conclusions reached in this paper. See Rutledge, E., ‘Property transfer and enrolment in Norwich 1285–1311’, in Priestley, U. (ed.), Men of Property, An Analysis of the Norwich Enrolled Deeds, 1285–1311 (Norwich, 1983), 41–69Google Scholar; Martin, G.H. (ed.), The Ipswich Recognizance Rolls, 1294–1327, A Calendar (Suffolk Record Society, 16, 1973).Google Scholar

³ Norwich cathedral priory obedientary rolls. NRO, Dean and Chapter records (hereafter DCN), 1/7/4, 1/12/23, 1/12/25 and 1/8/26. The property let by the month paid for a thirteen-month year. For ‘lodgers’ see Hudson, W. (ed.), Leet Jurisdiction in the City of Norwich during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries with a Short Notice of its Later History and Decline (Selden Society, 5, 1892), 4Google Scholar and the Norwich leet rolls, NRO, Norwich City Records (hereafter NCR), case 5, shelf b. These ‘lodgers’ are not servants who are frequently so described in the rolls. They were the least settled group within the city, almost all known lodgers being presented for not being in tithing compared to fewer than a third of those with tenancies.

⁴ Mancroft tithing roll, NRO, NCR, case 5, shelf c. See Hudson, , Leet JurisdictionGoogle Scholar and Rutledge, E., ‘Immigration and population growth in early fourteenth-century Norwich: evidence from the tithing roll’, Urban History Yearbook (1988), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ The rationale for this population multiplier appears in Rutledge, ‘Immigration and population growth’, 30. Krause gives urban household sizes of about 4 in Florence in 1380,4.14 in Fribourg in the 1440s and between 3.2 and 4.3 at Ypres, in Krause, J., ‘The medieval household: large or small?’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, IX (1957), 420–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ See grants cum redditibus made by Ralph de Lenn and his wife and Nicholas le Chapeler and his wife in 1303 and 1304: NRO, NCR, case 1, shelf a, court roll 4 mm 9d, 14. For rows of shops and cottages see NRO, MC 146/52 684X5 and Norwich court rolls, NRO, NCR, case 1, shelf a passim.

⁷ Keene, , Survey, 138Google Scholar; NRO, MC 146/52 684X5, maps 102, 74.

⁸ A rare example of splitting a single dwelling occurs when part of a messuage in the parish of St Julian, namely a stone solar, a room, another outside room and a stable, with a right of way through the hall and courtyard, was let for life in 1307. NRO, NCR, case 1, shelf a, court roll 4 m 35. The numbers of ‘habitable properties’ given in this paper, though not the proportion lying within the leet of Mancroft, differ slightly from those in Rutledge, ‘Immigration and population growth’. They were recalculated after the Reconstruction plans had been finalized and deposited in the Norfolk Record Office.

⁹ NRO, MC 146/52 684X5, maps 9,118. The total excludes four rows later transferred as a messuage or tenement but includes another four referred to subsequently as messuages in abuttals.

¹⁰ For further details see Rutledge, , ‘Immigration and population growth’Google Scholar, passim.

¹¹ Elsewhere the increased use of leases in the early fourteenth century has been partly attributed to the statute of Quia emptores (1290). This in effect abolished assize rents (p. 15) reserved to a seller of property, thereby depriving both the seller of a regular rent and the purchaser of the opportunity of paying out of income, a situation which a move towards leasing might re-establish (Keene, , Survey, 188ff.Google Scholar and Keene, D., ‘The property market in English towns A.D. 1100–1600’Google Scholar) in Vigeur, J.-C. M. (ed.), D'une ville à l'autre: structures matérielles et organisation de l'espace dans les villes européennes (Collection de l'école française de Rome, 122, 1989), 213Google Scholar. At Norwich, however, most assize rents reserved by deeds enrolled 1285–90 were purely nominal while even after 1290 payment out of income could still be assured, where required, by the creation of a new assize rent (a rentcharge) (Rutledge, , ‘Property transfer’, 59, 63Google Scholar). Moreover, while some former purchasers may have switched to leases for life or longer terms of years, this would not have affected the demand from the less well-off for yearly, monthly and weekly tenancies.

¹² Rutledge, , ‘Immigration and population growth’, 25Google Scholar; Hudson, W. and Tingey, J.C. (eds), The Records of the City of Norwich (Norwich, 1906–1910), I, 189.Google Scholar

¹³ Keene, , Survey, 165Google Scholar; Short, P., ‘The fourteenth century rows of York’, Archaeological Journal, 137 (1980), 86–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Atkin, M., ‘Medieval clay-walled building in Norwich’, Norfolk Archaeology, XLI (1991), 171–85.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Pound, J., Tudor and Stuart Norwich (London, 1988), 26Google Scholar; Dyer, A., The City of Worcester in the Sixteenth Century (Leicester, 1973), 164.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hudson, and Tingey, , Records, I, 20.Google Scholar The uncertain number of properties reflects the blurring of tithing boundaries since c. 1311. New entrants to the tithings after about 1327/28 were listed on an additional membrane used because of shortage of space on the original roll. Rutledge, , ‘Immigration and population growth’, 22.Google Scholar

¹⁶ There is a 1299 grant of a messuage near St Stephen's gates to help with the building of the wall in NRO, NCR, case 3/4, private deeds box 11; NRO, MC 146/52 684X5, map 109.

¹⁷ They either followed secular occupations, were married, were female, or (Henry de Hevingham) served as bailiff of the city.

¹⁸ Rutledge, , ‘Property transfer’, 60.Google Scholar

¹⁹ NRO, NCR, case 1, shelf a, court rolls 1 m 1d and 2 m 4d.

²⁰ Atkin, M. and Sutermeister, H., ‘Excavations in Norwich—1977/8’, Norfolk Archaeology, XXXVII (1978), 42–3.Google Scholar

²¹ Butcher, A.F., ‘Rent and the urban economy: Oxford and Canterbury in the later middle ages’, Southern History, I (1979), 18.Google Scholar

²² Fuller, E.A., ‘The tallage of 6 Edward II and the Bristol rebellion’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 19 (1894–1995), 224–69.Google Scholar

²³ In the account rolls of Norwich cathedral priory hostilar, for instance, two rents of 3s each listed among the lettings from 1331/32 to 1347/48 are not described as rents of assize until 1339/40 (NRO, DCN 1/7/3–11); Keene, , Survey, 188.Google Scholar

²⁴ Based on the known income of Norwich cathedral priory and the Great Hospital (see note 34) and the busy secular market in assize rents evident in the Norwich court rolls.

²⁵ Calculated from Fuller, ‘Tallage’, 224–69.Google Scholar

²⁶ NRO, NCR, case 1, shelf a, court rolls 8–13; NRO, MC 146/52 684X5, map 108. The chaplains apparently held interests in other properties in Great Newgate as trustees.

²⁷ NRO, MC 146/52 684X5, map 79; Fernie, E.C. and Whittingham, A.B., The Early Communar and Pitancer Roils of Norwich Cathedral Priory with an Account of the Building of the Cloister (Norfolk Record Society, XLI, 1972), 111–12.Google Scholar For the Great Hospital account rolls see NRO, NCR, case 4, shelf a and for the Norwich cathedral priory rentals and accounts see NRO, DCN 1.

²⁸ Hudson, and Tingey, , Records, II, 30–8, 363–6.Google Scholar

²⁹ NRO, DCN 1/10/1, 1/10/4, 1/8/6, 1/8/37.

³⁰ NRO, DCN 45/33/38, 44, 52.

³¹ NRO, DCN 1 /7/3–11, l /4/29–S4; NRO, NCR, case 1, shelf a, court roll 13 m 4d. Rent rises might also be restricted by other agreements. In 1298, for example, the prior of Norwich leased a messuage to Richard de Wellebrun and his wife from year to year (de anno in annum). The tenancy was to continue for as long as the rent of 11s was paid, giving the landlord no opportunity to increase the amount (NRO, DCN 45/15/9).

³² Hudson, and Tingey, , Records, II, 37, 364–5; NRO, DCN 1 /7/2–6. In 1346 the St Cuthbert property appears to consist of the tenements paid for by Robert atte Forth, Richard de Erlham, Robert Plomer, Geoffrey de Mundham and John Emelot. When re-let in 1352 John Emelot's tenement was described as ‘all those cottages … together’ (omnia illa cotagia … coniunctim): St Cuthbert private deeds NRO, NCR, case 3. Information on the holdings of the city and the hostilar comes from the Reconstructions.Google Scholar

³³ NRO, DCN 1/2/, 1/3/ 1/4/, 1/7/, 1/8/, 1/9/, 1/1O/, 1/12/, passim; Hudson, and Tingey, , Records, II, 364–5Google Scholar; Keene, , Survey, 237.Google Scholar Two of the hostilar's cottages lay in the Turpis Vicus (foul street) also known as Gropecuntelane and presumably a red light district: Sandred, K.I. and Lindstrom, B., The Place-names of Norfolk. 1. The Place-names of the City of Norwich (English Place-name Society, LXI, 1989), 122.Google Scholar

³⁴ For the cathedral priory this is based on a rough calculation, taking each source of income at its highest point. The unknown factor is the income received from assize rents by the cellarer. These total about £17 in his rent rolls but his income, like that of other obedientaries, suffered from arrears (NRO, DCN 1/2/, 1/3/). If the amount received was about two-thirds of this total, the priory income from the two types of rent would have been similar. In 1353/54 the Great Hospital's income from Norwich assize rents was £8 and from lettings was £13 5s 9d (NRO. NCR, case 24, shelf a, Great Hospital account roll 1353/54).

³⁵ Keene, , ‘Property market’, 212–13Google Scholar; Fernie, and Whittingham, , Communar and Pitancer Rolls, 112Google Scholar; Rutledge, , ‘Property transfer’, 61.Google Scholar

³⁶ Calendar of Patent Roils, 1330–1334 (London, 1893), 180.Google Scholar

³⁷ Keene, , Survey, 203.Google Scholar The eschaetor was ordered not to meddle in a Norwich property recovered by the Cathedral priory almoner in 1315/16: Calendar of Close Rolls, 1330–1333 (London, 1898), 431.Google Scholar At Battle Abbey there appears to have been a definite policy of repurchasing properties paying low assize rents in order to increase income from lettings (Bearle, E., Lordship and Community. Battle Abbey and its Banlieu 1066–1538 (Toronto, 1974), 151–4).Google Scholar

³⁸ NRO, NCR, case 3/4, private deeds box 10.

³⁹ NRO, DCN 1/5/4–12.

⁴⁰ NRO, DCN 1/6/9–12.

⁴¹ There is no sign at Norwich of the stake prosecutions used to recover non-paying properties at Winchester (Keene, , Survey, 19–20).Google Scholar

⁴² NRO, DCN 1/7/7–11.

⁴³ NRO, DCN 1/4/, 1/6/, 1/8/, 1/12/.

⁴⁴ Keene, , Survey, 243Google Scholar; Keene, D., Cheapside Before the Great Fire (ESRC, 1985), 19Google Scholar; Mate, M., ‘Property investment by Canterbury cathedral priory, 1250–1400’, Journal of British Studies, XXIII, 2 (1984), 6–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Keene, , Survey, 195, 243, Fig. 24.Google Scholar