The municipal buildings of medieval England were, almost without exception, not on a scale that rivalled those of the great cities of Flanders or Italy, but a few at least were impressive on their own terms. The late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries saw renovation and rebuilding of a number of town halls, reflecting the transition from a local government which existed out of necessity and on an almost voluntary basis to one which had wide-ranging powers, corporate status, a taste for show, and a strong sense of self. Among these efforts were the improvements to the Colchester moothall in 1373/74, the building in the 1420s of a new hall for use by both merchant gild and urban administration at Lynn, the rebuilding of York's guildhall in the 1440s, possible addition of a third storey to Northampton's guildhall in the late fifteenth century, and of course the most ambitious venture: the rebuilding of London's guildhall during the reigns of Henry V and VI.

The early 1400s likewise saw the rebuilding of Norwich's seat of government, from what has been described – somewhat unjustly, although perhaps reflecting the opinion of city rulers of that time – as "a very humble shed, quite unworthy of the city" [Ian Hannah, The Heart of East Anglia, London, ca.1913, 229], into a still imposing structure that has survived for six centuries. During the Middle Ages only London's Guildhall was larger. The old Tolbooth had been outgrown both by governmental functions and by political aspirations, and it is no coincidence that the rebuilding got underway in 1407, just three years after a new royal charter had introduced a mayor and sheriffs (each with their own court to hold), given the city county status and the administration broader powers, and apparently endorsed the existence of separate political "estates". The new constitution required a new seat of government commensurate with its status and scope of activities.

At an assembly in 1407, a committee of 24 citizens was created to consider where to find money to fund the construction project, and to put builders to work. Possibly this project was set in motion, or at least politically sponsored, by the mayor of 1406/07 – the Walter Danyel mentioned several times in the above document. Walter was a veteran politician who had served, in the pre-mayoralty period, as city bailiff in 1385/86, 1392/93, and 1399/1400. After the popular William Appleyard had served as Norwich's first mayor for three consecutive terms, the city council objected to his re-election for a fourth and wished to have Danyel elected – to which Appleyard acquiesced. Walter was succeeded in the mayoralty by his brother, and was himself returned to the mayoralty in 1409, and again in 1419 and 1423. That Walter might have been the kind of man to favour a project to create a more impressive seat of government is suggested by the expenditure, during his mayoralty of 1406/07, on creating for the mayoral sword a harness decorated with silver, a sheath, and other accountrements of silk and velvet, as well as a fur-lined beaver-skin hat for the mayor.

John Marrow was used as the principal mason for the Guildhall project. He has been described as representative of a relatively small class of independent master masons with a business in which they employed full-time assistants [D. Knoop and G.P. Jones, The Mediaeval Mason, Manchester, 1949, 103], and yet there is some doubt whether he can be considered the master mason assigned to the Guildhall project, for he was simply paid a normal daily wage and not given any special reward – although the same reservation might be expressed about John Croxton. It would appear that the Norwich authorities preferred to keep this project under their own hand, rather than contract it out. Nonetheless, Marrow was paid for 68 days of work, his brother – seemingly a junior partner in the family construction business, perhaps learning the trade from the senior – worked with him for 59 days, for 47 days he had three workmen under his direction, and for another 15 days two workmen. Although we only see the work that went on in 1410/11, it is likely that Marrow had been much involved in the project from the outset. Some years later he would be given another important project: to rebuild the community quay, but this time under a contract, so that he was wholly responsible not only for the masonry work but also for the carpentry (perhaps sub-contracting), and so for that work we have no financial account.

In 1407 Marrow managed to rebuild the crypt, or vault, underneath the old Tolbooth. The account of the city treasurers for 1407/08 includes £13.4s.6d for carting costs, and other expenses related to the employ of a large number of horse-pulled carts: making of a new cart for the city and shodding of its wheels with iron; 21½d. spent on cart grease; purchase of 93 horseshoes from the Alan Smyth named in the above document, and twelve shoeings conducted by that same blacksmith; a veterinarian's bill for treating one horse; 14s. for horse collars, traces, saddles, halters, hames and whips; £5 expended on horse feed; and payments to a man apparently put in charge of the community cart-horses. Expenditures on this scale for transportation point to an unusual project which must be the Guildhall construction.

The following year, two supervisors of the project were appointed – one being Walter Danyel – and another committee put together to levy a tax on the city to pay for the ongoing work, while the city constables were authorized to commandeer labour services from the citizenry. The walls of the new building were raised in that year. The year after that, with another tax and further forced labour, the roof went on.

By the time of the work documented by the financial accounts of 1411-13, the shell appears to have been largely completed, and work focused on finishing the exterior and fitting out the interior, as well perhaps to extending the crypt. Various sub-projects can be seen from the groupings within the account, although the nature of only a few of these is identified by the account; some of the costs are lost due to damage to the document, or illegibility. Richard Howlett erred in dating this document; Ocle and Bilhagh were not chamberlains in 1410/11, although they held office for the following two years – their re-election to a second term may have been intended to ensure continuity in the important task of Guildhall construction. By the end of their term, the Guildhall was sufficiently operational to be housing prisoners. Spaces within the hall were also intended to serve for courtrooms (hence the convenience of having prison cells in the same building) and political meetings. In early 1415 the Guildhall was sufficiently complete that it could be designated as the location of the mayoral elections, in a document that throws some light on the facilities there. However, improvements continued to be made over the next few decades. In 1432/33 we hear of the exchequer (financial office) in the Guildhall, and in 1436/37 2,000 wall tiles were bought from a Yarmouth man to finish the interior of one of the towers, so that it could be converted into the city treasury. Work on the interior continued up to 1453.

I have elsewhere given some description of the medieval Guildhall and its facilities, and will not repeat that here.

Most named the suppliers of materiel for the construction project, as identified in the above document, were members of the ruling class. John Michel served as treasurer in 1410/11 and as sheriff in 1416/17. William Rees, or Roos, had been treasurer in 1401/02 and was sheriff in 1417/18. Thomas Ocle was of course a chamberlain supervising the project finances, and went on to election as sheriff in 1415. Walter Danyel, who has already been mentioned, was the single largest supplier, making £21 from the sale of lead for the Guildhall roof; he was a merchant, although I do not know in which type of goods he specialized. His fellow supervisor, Robert Dunston, is not found supplying anything; he was a merchant, but none of the goods he is known to have imported or exported were construction materials. Richard Drewe was sheriff in 1406/07. Robert Baxter would become a chamberlain in 1415 and go on to the shrievalty in 1418 and his first of two mayoralties in 1424. John Clerk was one of the treasurers of 1411/12, while Thomas Cok was a former treasurer (1403/04) and would be elected sheriff in 1414. John Covell may properly be the John Sorell who was treasurer in 1409/10. William Nich had served as treasurer 1409/10, and would be chosen as chamberlain in 1416 and as sheriff in 1421. Sampson Baxter had been a treasurer in 1398/99 and sheriff in 1404/05.

Modern sensibilities may cause some to look askance at such arrangements, but we should not be too quick to jump to judgement. Rather than see it as a corrupt practice, although self-interested it undoubtedly was, we might think of it primarily as a matter of convenience. There were no city directories or Yellow Pages in those times, and it was easier to identify suppliers who were close at hand. Members of the ruling class were so in part because of their economic status, and some of them were doubtless merchants involved in importing construction materials or master craftsmen with stock on hand. Thomas Ocle, for example, was described as a painter when he became a freeman of Norwich (1387), and this occupation likely was some advantage to the Guildhall project. Advantageous access to business opportunities was one perk of political or bureaucratic office in the medieval town, most of such offices being under-remunerated in terms of salary.

It may even have been seen as a civic duty to assist in this fashion with civic projects, while the city's decision-makers may have preferred to deal with men they knew and presumably considered reliable. This was not restricted to their colleagues in government: the above account indicates that the city had certain carters it called on time and time again, and the same Alan Smyth (a.k.a. Bull or Dully) who we have seen called on for goods and services on several occasions was also commissioned in 1409/10 to produce a pair of manacles for the city and in 1411/12 to produce hooks and hinges for city properties other than the Guildhall. Furthermore, those in the ranks of the administration would have a more realistic appreciation that payment could sometimes be slow in coming. The final section of that part of the account transcribed above indicates that, as of the date of accounting, which must have taken place at some time after Michaelmas 1413, debts remained owing to a number of the suppliers and craftsmen.

There are other indications that the assigned revenues to the construction project were not sufficient to cover the costs. A separate membrane attached to the main list of expenditures refers to payments received by Ocle. The list begins with two items totalling £25.13s.4d handed over by Simon Cook, and £10 by Robert Baas. This pair were the city treasurers of 1405/06. The next three items concern £7 handed over by Simon Hacford and Richard Stenyour, who were the treasurers of 1407/08. The item that follows is £8 handed over by Richard Southfeld, who was one of the sheriffs of 1413/14. The eighth item is for £3.6s.8d and was handed over by Thomas Marchall, one of the treasurers of 1412/13. The next three items are sums received from Thomas Benet, one of the treasurers of 1408/09, via intermediaries, one being the same Thomas Marchall, and the other being John Clerk, a treasurer of 1411/12. The treasurers' account of 1411/12 also mentions the transfer during that term to Ocle and Bilhagh, from the ex-treasurers of 1408/09, of £20 for the Guildhall project. A further item concerns £2.13s.4d from Robert Stalon; while this may have something to do with materials Stalon had supplied, we may note that he was the farmer of the common staith in 1413/14, and possibly the amount he paid was related to the farm he owed the city. It would seem that these moneys were being diverted from other city revenues to keep the Guildhall project afloat.

At any rate, to return to the possible charge of corruption, there is no sign that putting business the way of one's political colleagues, or even oneself, unduly excited the Norwich populace. Although conceivably it could have been another irritant in the growing political discontent at that period, it was not one of the explicit complaints that eventually surfaced.