David Stoker’s work on the correspondence of Blomefield has shown that each engraving was paid for by a subscriber, typically one with a personal interest in particular buildings, arms, monuments or seals.¹⁴ The Plan of Norwich was paid for by Thomas Gooch, Bishop of Norwich (1675–1754), who is mentioned in the cartouche on the Plan (Fig. 13.5). Gooch transferred to Norwich in November 1738 after being consecrated as Bishop of Bristol in the previous year.¹⁵ During his time at Norwich he incorporated the societies for the government of the charity for the relief of the widows and children of the poor clergy in the Diocese of Norwich.¹⁶ The most recent seal illustrated on the plan is dated 1741 and belonged to this charitable organisation (Fig. 13.6). This seal also provides a useful terminus post quem for the plan itself.¹⁷ Although Gooch did not have long-standing connections with Norwich, his interest in the city and county’s social institutions may have set the framework for the inclusion of certain seals and the exclusion of others. Most conspicuous by its absence is the seal of Norwich cathedral priory. This was illustrated in volume 2, but was paid for by Thomas Martin and engraved by Blomefield’s copper-plate engraver at Fersfield, William Toms.¹⁸

Blomefield evidently had access to a large number of earlier plans to inform his own, citing access to antiquarian John Kirkpatrick’s papers. It was Kirkpatrick’s brother, Thomas, who had authored the 1723 prospect of Norwich incorporating coins from the city. Cartographic historian Thomas Chubb wrote about the making of the Blomefield plan, claiming that:

‘Although the plan definitely describes Blomefield as “delin. et excud.”, he may not have done more than prepare a rough outline, because he appears not to have been an accomplished artist. From copies of his letters in his Original Entry Book of Memoranda for the History of Norfolk, 1733–6, (presented to the Norwich Public Libraries by Mr Walter Rye) it appears that he had “great difficulty in finding friends to draw” for him. He also acknowledges help received from “one Mr. Martin, as good a drawer as any is in England.”’¹⁹

Stoker’s biography of Thomas Martin may support Chubb’s suggestion that Blomefield had help producing the plan, as Martin was apparently known in antiquarian circles for his skill as a copyist in ‘the different writing of every aera, and tricking arms, seals, &c, with great neatness’.²⁰ However, Walter Rye’s representation of Blomefield’s character and abilities in an earlier entry in the Dictionary of National Biography has been criticised by Stoker.²¹ Collaboration on the drawings for the plan is certainly possible, and may have been necessary given its size and the number of seals that were included.

Blomefield and Toms appear to have had a difficult professional relationship, with the latter falling out of favour in 1736, but he was still employed by Blomefield until 1743.²² Subsequently, writing to a William Cole at Kings College, Cambridge on 10 March 1746, Blomefield stated that ‘My map is now near finished. Mr Vertue hath the 2d revise.’²³ George Vertue (1684–1756) was well-known and highly respected as engraver to the Society of Antiquaries and Oxford University, but there is no direct correspondence between him and Blomefield to illuminate the working process.²⁴ Stoker does not elaborate on the decision to use Vertue as the engraver for the Plan.