< Back Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford John S Hartley and Alan Rogers 2017 There have been many requests for this book which is now out of print and not easily reprintable, so we have decided to create a .pdf of the book for free distribution. We have taken the opportunity to list below additional information found since its original publication under each of the headings as below. This pdf may be copied freely - we hope that eventually it will be available for download on the website of the Stamford and District Local History Society John S Hartley Alan Rogers February 2017 T he book can be read HERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GENERAL Considerable information about the ownership of property in Stamford by all the religious foundations is to be found in the following volumes which have been published since this catalogue was first produced: The Act Book of St Katherine’s Gild, Stamford, 1480-1534 edited Alan Rogers 2011 Bury St Edmunds: abramis ISBN 978-1-84549-509-1; 299 pages People and Property in medieval Stamford: a catalogue of title deeds from Stamford, Lincolnshire, from the twelfth century to 1547 2012 edited Alan Rogers abramis ISBN 978-1-84549-548-0 Noble Merchant: William Browne (c1410-1489) and Stamford in the fifteenth century, Alan Rogers 2012, abramis ISBN 978-1-84549-565-7 ALL SAINTS CHURCH Robert rector of church of All Saints in the Market late 12th century PRO E326/4293, 4626 Proctor of the mass celebrated in the church of All Saints in the Market 1339-40, PRO E326/4690 Church taxed at 8 marks 1450 PRO E36/52 Stock of All Saints gild valued at £4 1524/5 PRO E179/136/315 ST ANDREW’S CHURCH It would seem to have been located in the churchyard of St Michael - see PRO E326/4736 for mention of two churchyards; see also M E Briston and T M Halliday (ed) The Pilsgate Manor of the Sacrist of Peterborough Northants Record Society 2009 p 91 - St Michael’s church paying a rent for two churchyards in Staunford, 1271-4 ST CLEMENTS CHURCH Ascelin priest of St Clements church late 12th century PRO E326/4626 ‘Parson’ of St Clements church taxed to lay [sic] subsidy 12d, 1450 PRO 179/276/44 Chantry certificate 1548 PRO E301/33/122 ST GEORGE’S CHURCH This may be the church of St Gregory mentioned in PRO CP40/296 m42; Justin Simpson’s notes 1 p56 (in Town Hall, Stamford) 1450 church was untaxed - a pension of 16s was due to Fromond priory PRO E36/62 Stipend of the church in 1524/5 was £4 PRO E179/136/315 HOLY TRINITY/ ST STEPHENS CHURCH Stock of the gild of Holy Trinity valued at £3 1524-25 PRO E179/136/315 CPSD letters ST JOHN THE BAPTIST Valued at 17 marks without the pension to Fromond 1450 PRO E36/62 ST MARTIN’S CHURCH Gild taxed at 6d in 1450 PRO E179/276/44; paid pension to sacrist of Peterborough PRO E36/62 Stock of St Martin’s gild valued at £3 in 1524-25 PRO E179/136/315 Chantry certificate 1548 in full in Justin Simpson’s notes 1 page 93 Inquiry into land of church 1617 Justin Simpson’s notes 1 pages 140-1 ST MARY’S CHURCH Gild of Corpus Christi taxed at 6s in 1449-50, PRO E179/276/44 Gild of Our Lady, stock valued at £10 1524-25 PRO E179/136/315 ST MARY BYNEWERK See Howgrave pp 10, 96 ST MICHAEL’S CHURCH Pension in 1450 was 14s PRO E36/62 See St Andrews church Gild in St Michael’s church: in 1524-25, the stipend of the church was valued at £2, the stipend of the gild at £6, PRO E179/136/315 ST PAUL’S CHURCH For the gild of St Katherine which met in this church, see St Katherine’s Gild book listed above ST PETER’S CHURCH Valued at 14½ marks with pension to Lincoln of 20s in 1450 PRO E36/62 DEAN OF STAMFORD Alexander dean early thirteenth century PRO E326/4548 Reiner dean teacher and dean; probably son of Herward PRO E326/ 4541, 4548, 4626 1442 the will of John Browne father of William Browne was proved in the court of the dean of Stamford held in All Saints church; Devon Record Office Simcoe 1038 M/T/9/2. BROWNE’S HOSPITAL The most up-to-date account of this hospital is to be found in Nick Hill and Alan Rogers 2013 Guild, Hospital and Alderman: new light on the founding of Browne’s Hospital, Stamford 1475-1509 abramis The Wardens: managing a late medieval hospital (Browne’s Hospital, Stamford 1495-1518) edited Alan Rogers 2014 abramis and Stamford Survey Group. ST GILES HOSPITAL For Spittle Close in 1556, see Justin Simpson’s notes 1 pp 111-112 ST JOHN’S HOSPITAL Justin Simpson’s notes 1 p 91 cites chantry certificate: the free chapel of St John is annexed to a spittell house being situated upon Stamford bridge and is no parish church; one stipendiary priest SCHOOLS John Cissor alumpnus quondam domini Henrici Engayne 13th century PRO E328/16 Master Peter alumnus of Reiner sometime dean of Stamford thirteenth century PRO E326/4541 ST LEONARDS PRIORY Rent in St Mary’s parish, thirteenth century PRO E326/4553 1450 valued same as in 1291, PRO E36/62 1833 rebuilding John Chandler notes pages 188-9 See: Alan Piper, St Leonard’s Priory in Stamford Historian Nos 5 & 6 NUNNERY OF ST MICHAEL Possessions in the whole diocese valued at £66 13s 4d 1450 PRO E36/62 AUSTIN FRIARS Illustration on p.60 – the stone is now to be found on the inside face of the (rebuilt) town wall on the south side of North Street almost opposite the former Police Station, technically in the back garden of a Barn Hill property. Contribution by Lady Margaret Beaufort to repairs at Austin Friars of £3-6-8 St John’s Cambridge D91.20 p.195 GREY FRIARS First mention in 1240-45 in Calendar of Liberate Rolls 1240-45 p 253 [thanks to Martin Olle) Excavations by Cambridge Archaeological Unit 2015-16 - report not available yet BRAZENOSE SITE See Nicholas Sheehan’s article at https://www.stamfordhistorysociety.co.uk/published-articles-1/the-brazenose-site-in-stamford MONASTIC HOUSES ASHBY PRIORY: Rent of 2s given to canons of St Mary, Esseby, mid 13th century PRO E326/4760 BOURNE ABBEY held property in Stamford valued at £2 and free of court, 1450 PRO E36/62 BROOKE PRIORY: Valuation in 1450 same as 1291 PRO E36/62 CROWLAND: Valuation in 1450 same as 1291 PRO E36/62 CROXDEN ABBEY: Valued at £17 10s in 1450 - tax is paid by the tenants PRO E36/62 For sale in 1545, see Justin Simpson notes 1 p 27 CROXTON: Valuation in 1450 same as 1291 PRO E36/62 Bought by Thomas earl of Rutland in 1547 but came back to the king PRO E328/157 FINESHADE PRIORY: Valuation in 1450 same as 1291; tax paid by the tenants PRO E36/62 Rent of ½ mark in St Mary’s parish PRO E326/4551 Gable in west end of house used to support a beam, PRO E326/4747 House in Colgate PRO E326/4752 HUNTINGDON PRIORY : Valuation in 1450 same as 1291 PRO E36/62 See Justin Simpson’s notes 1 pp 28-29 PIPEWELL ABBEY: Valued at £2 6s 8d in 1450, PRO E36/62 SEMPRINGHAM PRIORY: Dispute between Elmes and Lee over a garden in the parish of St Peter which Lee claimed Sempringham had leased to him in 1528, PRO E321/15/7 SWINESHEAD ABBEY: See Calendar of Patent Rolls Elizabeth 1 Vol 5 p.74-5, No. 554 21 March 1570: Lease for 11 years to William Cecil lord Burghley of lands [...in Bourne ....] and (tenant named) in Stampford co Linc late of monastery of Swineshead .... rents a) £27-15-8 (detailed) and b) 8s. in consideration that three tenements on the premises have been burnt down and must be rebuilt - also costs of draining marshlands and repairing 2 mills badly decayed for which the Crown has been charged ....... VAUDEY ABBEY: Valuation in 1450 same as 1291 PRO E36/62 ANCHORESSES: There are several references to be found in the papers of Lady Margaret Beaufort in St John’s College, Cambridge, D91; see also publications listed at head of this note; also, E A Jones Speculum Inclusorum: a mirror for recluses Liverpool University Press 2013. Previous Next

< Back The Stamford Deviation Mike Sockett 2018 There is a common assertion that the Great Northern Railway planned for their route to come through, or near to, Stamford and that it was the objection of the Marquis of Exeter that stopped this. However there is evidence that this was not the case and is certainly not the whole picture. In May 1844 the GNR proposed a route through Peterborough and a meeting was held in Stamford to lobby for a ‘deviation’ that would take the railway near the town, with a station at Newstead. By August the GNR had decided against the deviation, though the people of Stamford continued campaigning. It seems that the Marquis of Exeter initially supported this deviation but by 1846 had withdrawn his support and then become an active opponent. There is s letter in the Mercury on June 14th 1847 which is a clear attack on Exeter accusing him of being a hypocrite. In this it is asserted that when the deviation was proposed Exeter actually drew a line of the railway on the map and made sure it would pass through his land! It is then asserted that when the GNR refused to give him the price he was asking for his land he withdrew his support and instructed his Parliamentary nominee Granby to remove from the Bill all references to the Stamford deviation. As the letter is signed by ‘a person’ this was clearly a political issue – there was general election the following month. A Committee of the House of Commons had considered the issue of the deviation and gave their reasons for refusal on June 8th 1847, here addressing the role of the Marquis of Exeter: “….it may well have weighed with the Committee to consider whether they would sanction anything which could in any way injure or detract from the noble, and princely, and historical domain of Burghley…..these cases were by no means the grounds for our decision. It was a matter of public not private interest which swayed us in the judgement at which we arrive.” The Committee also dealt clearly with the whole issue of whether the deviation was in the general interest: “…..as the station intended for them by the Great Northern was to be upwards of a mile from the town of Stamford, they would still have that distance to go to gain the GN, thereby gaining an advantage of only three miles, while the rest of England travelling on that line and not intending to stop at Stamford, would be carried nearly two miles out of their course by the proposed deviation; and it came therefore to a nice account for the Committee to settle between Stamford and all the rest of the travelling world, whether the people of Stamford should go three miles out of their way or all other travellers two miles. It was, as it were, a fair match between Stamford on the one side and all England and Scotland on the other; we thought that England had it.” There are two interpretations of the role of Burghley in this: Firstly that he did not want the GNR through Stamford, but supported the campaign of the town to keep in with its citizens (and voters!). His support is referred to as ‘luke warm’ in one source. Secondly that he did want Stamford on the GNR because it would be very profitable for him, but he miscalculated the price the company was willing to pay for his land. It would seem that the idea of the GNR passing through, or near to, Stamford was never part of the railway company’s plan and it was always referred to as a ‘deviation’, ie a deviation from the preferred route through Peterborough and Tallington. For a map of railway routes in the Stamford area that shows the line of the deviation proposal see Martin Smith, ‘Stamford Then and Now’, (1992), page 120. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Incumbents of the Stamford Churches c.1886 By Chris Hunt From Simpson Papers in Town Hall, My Notes Vol 1 pp.6 & 8 Limericks have always been popular, especially in the later C19th after Edward Lear published a series in 1845. However these reflect the attitude from the organ loft of one church ….. Six churches so six incumbents – those were the days! – JSH Found among the papers of St Michael’s Church c.1970 “Some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers.” Stamford St. Martin’s Rev. Chancellor My first is the Chancellor haughty It’s nice, folks have said, but it’s naughty With maidens to play At all hours of the day So be careful, my Chancellor haughty. St. Mary Rev Wickham My second’s th’evangelist Wickham With grace, meet and unction to lick ‘em If he’d sit rather less And stand more, I’d bless The burning and shining light, Wickhan. St. John Rev. Waller My third‘s the uxorious Waller Whose truths are not easy to swaller To blackguard the Pope Seems the limit and scope Of the brainless book learning of Waller. All .Saint Rev. Oldfield My fourth is the sociable Oldfield Who they say has the wealth of a goldfield His nieces are charming But it’s more than alarming To sit for an hour under Oldfield St. George.Rev. HB Browning My fifth is the invalid Browning Much given to fireside and frowning When the Litany’s said Then he’s off to his bed The prudent but profitless Browning St. Michael Rev.H. Macdougall My sixth’s the well loving Macdougall This last rouses black bile and blue gall If your voice is in trim Try his Jubilee Hymn And you’ll make some remarks on Macdougall “ 1886 By Messrs. Hailstone (tutor) and Harvey, (Organist, St. George) “ A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford in Domesday Book Dr David Roffe 2018 Stamford and District Local History Society, 15 February 2018 Introduction Thank you so much for inviting me to Stamford. It is a great delight to be back here again and to be invited to reflect on the history of the town. I first began thinking about its origins and early history in 1975. I had volunteered to work on the castle excavation directed by Christine Mahany. Many of you will remember the site. It was at the time one of the largest medieval excavations ever undertaken and certainly unprecedented in terms of a castle. The finds were quite spectacular, not that I had much to do with them: it soon became apparent, in fact by lunchtime on the first day, that I was not a natural digger. Bang went another career option. I could read Latin, though, and in the afternoon I was sent off to the office in Kings Mill House to try to make sense of the medieval documents relating to the castle and the town generally. The rest is history. Chris and I presented a synthesis of the historical and archaeological evidence for the origins and growth of Stamford at the Battle Conference in 1982. The paper was published in Anglo-Norman Studies in the following year. Much of the conclusions was based on the first comprehensive analysis of the Domesday account of the town. Historians had long mined the source for information, but there had never been a comprehensive analysis in terms of the later history of the lands that it describes. Tonight I shall revisit that study for the first time in 35 years. The intervening years has seen much new research in the field of Domesday studies, but I am glad to say that, by and large, our analysis has stood up well. The Domesday account of Stamford Domesday Book comes in two parts. Volume 2 is known as Little Domesday Book and describes the three eastern counties of Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. Volume 1, Great Domesday, covers the rest of the country south of the Tees and just a tiny bit of Wales. The relationship between the two parts does not concern us today. Suffice it to say that the account of Stamford occurs on folio 336d of Great Domesday. It appears at the head of the Lincolnshire folios after the account of Lincoln and is followed by Torksey and then the body of the text, the account of the lands of the tenants-in-chief, substantially the barons of the shire. It is written in Latin, but in a highly contracted form. You will notice that almost every word in the text exhibits diacriticals, that is distinctive marks that indicate the omission of letters (figure 1). This system of shorthand speeded up writing, but sometimes it is difficult to reconstruct exactly what the scribe wanted to say. Fortunately, our chap was on his best behaviour when he wrote up Stamford, for there are relatively few contractions and suspensions. We are not always so lucky, but here we can be confident of what he intended (figure 1). Figure 1: the Domesday account of Stamford The Domesday Survey Before we dive in and examine what he wrote we must first get some idea of why the Domesday survey, and Domesday Book that was compiled from its returns, was commissioned in the first place. Otherwise, we shall not be able to interpret what is recorded. You may have a vague idea from schooldays of the Domesday survey as a census. Well, it wasn't. To start with, at least half of the population is missing: there are next-to-no women mentioned in the text. More credible is the notion that Domesday was compiled as an inventory of William the Conqueror's new realm. Even so, there are still problems. William defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Why, then, did he leave it until 1086 to undertake the survey? True the Conquest was not complete until the fall of Ely in 1071, but the Domesday survey was still 15 years after. In reality the survey addressed urgent problems in 1085. England was threatened with invasion. King Cnut of Denmark had formed an alliance with Count Robert of Flanders and had mustered a fleet to conquer England. His claim to the throne was arguably stronger than William's and he must have thought that large parts of England were in one way or another sympathetic to his cause. William clearly saw Cnut as an existential threat to his rule. He was in Normandy when he heard of the imminent invasion, and acted with characteristic decisiveness. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that he crossed the channel with the largest force of mercenaries that had ever been seen in England. Meanwhile, Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury had convened a conference and it was decided to billet the troops on landholders throughout the country. In the event for various reasons the invasion was put off until the spring of 1086 and was then abandoned after the death of Cnut. William, though, was not to know this in late 1085. He laid off some of the mercenaries over the winter, but nevertheless continued with preparations for a renewed onslaught. He ordered the coast to be wasted to deprive any invading army of sustenance. All military enterprises depended on foraging for supplies in the eleventh cent ury. Further, at his Christmas court in Gloucester he appointed trusted agents to East Anglia which, with its Anglo-Scandinavian population, was seen as a particularly exposed Achilles heel. Wulfketel at Crowland was replaced by Ingulf and Gunter was appointed to Thorney and Maurice to the see of London (with extensive estates in Essex and East Anglia, the bishopric was a key player in the east of England). All three were trusted royal priests whom William could rely upon to represent his interests and act decisively. This was the context in which the Domesday survey was commissioned. At the same Christmas court, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William ordered a survey of the king's income in land and taxes and an equally exhaustive inquiry into the income and services of his tenants- in-chief, that is the barons. It is clear that the immediate aim was to raise cash to pay the mercenaries, but there was also a determination to plan for the future. The survey began in January 1086 and seems to have been complete by late June or early July. At a meeting, 'of all those who held land in England', at Salisbury in August 1086 taxation was extended to the lord's demesne and, it seems, new quotas of knights were determined. Never again was the realm to be dependent on mercenaries for its defence or at least that was the aim. The writing of the Book All of the data that were collected were then written up in what we now know as Domesday Book. When is a matter of debate. Many insist that it was compiled as part of the 1086 programme. But it is odd that it was not a complete record of the survey: it omits much of the data. I have therefore argued that it was a later enterprise ordered by William's son, William Rufus, in 1090. In 1088 there had been a rebellion against the new king which had occasioned much tenurial chaos. Domesday Book may have been compiled to inform a settlement. Writing in 1125 or so, the Anglo-Norman historian Orderic Vitalis probably makes an oblique reference to the enterprise. However, there is no explicit mention of the Book until the early years of the reign of Henry I, so it may have been compiled anytime up to 1102. The structure of the Stamford account Whatever its date, Domesday Book was clearly a royal feodary, that is a work of reference drawn up to inform government of the king's interests and dues. As such, it was an abstract – most noticeably the livestock so carefully recorded in the survey was jettisoned – but it drew all its data from the survey. The sort of information we get, then, is determined by the concerns of 1086. It is thus not surprising to find that the account of Stamford is divided into two broad sections, that is the income of the king and those of his tenants-in-chief. Both are signalled by capital letters and, intermittently, by paragraphoi, that is gallows marks, for the latter (figure 1). Now, Domesday talks in terms of land, terra in Latin, but we must take care not to be misled thereby. What is mostly involved is rights over land rather than in what we would call real estate. In an urban context those rights were various. Foremost was landgabel or gafol. This was a rent, usually around a shilling a year, due from the community of the borough. This sum, however, if prominent, was not the sum total of what 'land' signified. There were also renders that Domesday generically calls consuetudines, 'customs', payments in coin and kind that represent a former food rent, and occasional labour services such as mowing on the king or lord's demesne. Then there was soca, 'soke', that included dues for the right to bake and brew as well as the amercements, fines in modern terms, that were paid in the borough court. Finally, there were tolls which were taxes on the buying, selling, and the passage of goods. Land itself, freehold to be anachronistic, generally resided in the townsmen. The king's income Having cleared the ground, we can now get down to the nitty-gritty. We first get a statement of the tax the town paid to the king (figure 2); it was assessed at 12½ hundreds. In the Danelaw the hundred was not the institution of the same name of hidated England. That was represented by the wapentake. The northern hundred was more like a vill, the unit of local government at its lowest level – think the civil parish of today – and it was rated at 12 carucates. So Stamford was assessed at 150 carucates for the geld, army and navy service, and Danegeld. The town was divided into six wards. We have no further information, but they were probably each associated with the gates of the town. That was certainly the pattern elsewhere. The ward was a unit of policing – hence watch and ward – and an association with routes into a town is common. In the later Middle Ages there were five gates north of the river in Stamford and probably a sixth in Stamford Baron. All the dues that resulted accrued to the king. It should be noted that the ward south of the river was an integral part of the town even though in Northamptonshire. There is no evidence that it was ever constituted as a separate borough. Figure 2: tax and the wards of the town Then we move onto the number of properties that owed their dues to the king – 141 and half a mill in 1066 and the same in 1086 less 5 that had been destroyed in the building of the castle (figure 3). The dues of 4 others had been taken away by Brand, whom we can identify as abbot of Peterborough. A further two belonged to a Wulfketel son of Merewine who was almost certainly the former abbot of Crowland. Figure 3: the land of the king Finally, there were 77 properties that belonged to privileged sokemen over whom the king had more limited rights, namely heriot, forfeiture, and toll alone, that is death duty, the right to land consequent to felony and the like, and, as we have seen, taxes on traded goods (figure 4). Sokemen are not usually found in towns. Indeed, this reference is all but unique in an urban context. But in status they were akin to burgesses. Both, for example, had similar inheritance customs. In Stamford throughout the Middle Ages the property of an intestate burgess passed to his youngest son rather than his eldest. Many rural sokemen were also subject to this custom which became known in English law as Borough English. Eustace of Huntingdon who took away the mill was sheriff of Huntingdonshire. He, like sheriffs in general, was a notorious despoiler of land. How he came to put his oar into Stamford is unrecorded. Figure 4: the land of the sokemen The land and income of senior townsmen and tenants-in-chief As we have seen, the second section deals with dues that did not go to the king. Lawmen come first (figure 5). Twelve in 1066 and 9 in 1086 and holding in all 51½ properties, they held with sake and soke, that is all customs apart from the ones explicitly excluded here. They were judges of the law, receptacles of local custom rather than the bewigged panjandrums of today, but it is clear from a twelfth-century text called the Leges Edwardi Confessoris that they also acted as royal agents. They were responsible for recording crimes – in Stamford in 1226 they are called coroners – and they made distraints, that is took goods as bail, for offenders to appear in court. These are functions that were later granted by charter and so we are effectively looking at a town council. Unlike in Lincoln, the lawmen are not named. We do, however, have a valuable record of the properties they held. They were substantial townsmen and in all likelihood English. Fastolf too was English, holding a single church in 1086 which was quit, that is no dues were paid to the king (figure 6). Unfortunately, there is no record of who held the church in 1086. Figure 5: lawmen Figure 6: Fastolf Then we have a series of barons who had interests in Stamford. We can best start with the 9 properties held by Leofwine in 1066 and Alfred of Lincoln in 1086, We learn from Alfred's chapter in the body of the text that these belonged to his manor of Uffington (figure 7). We have no explicit evidence of this kind for other holdings, but the later history of some indicate other connections with rural manors. We learn from the 1212 survey of Stamford that the 23 properties held by Earnwine the priest and Eadsige and then Eudo Dapifer belonged to the manor of Wakerley in Northamptonshire (figure 8). The same source indicates that the 7 properties of Azor and Gunfrid de Chocques belonged to the manor of Casewick. Edward Cild's 14 properties belonged to Witham, Sproxton, or Tickencote. Finally, there were 10 properties in Lincolnshire, that is north of the river, that belonged to Peterborough abbey. I have been unable to place them in any particular manor. Figure 7: the manor of Uffington Figure 8: properties belonging to rural manors Queen Edith's fee Contributory manors, as they are known, of this kind are a common characteristic of English towns. They have been used to indicate the territory that was assigned to boroughs. Here, though, they are few in number and so little can be made of the pattern they describe. The 70 properties held by Queen Edith, the wife of King Edward the Confessor, which are described next may superficially appear to be of the same order. In reality, however, they are of a completely different type of holding (figure 9). Domesday indicates that the fee belonged to Roteland, that is the northern part of what became Rutland in the next century. This was an ancient dowage estate of the queens of England that consisted of a number of separate manors. The value at the end of the Stamford entry clearly indicates that the 70 properties had been one of them. Thus, in 1066 Queen Edith's fee was adjacent to the borough but not part of it. As odd as it may seem, this was by no means a unique characteristic of Stamford. Most English boroughs had royal and/or comital (earl's) estates closely associated with them. What is usual here, however, it that the estate was administered by the sheriff of Nottingham as Domesday indicates at the beginning of the account of Roteland. Figure 9: Queen Edith's fee By 1086 the 70 properties had become incorporated into Lincolnshire and Stanford. The fee of Albert of Lorraine, a priest of the royal household, hints at a reason. Albert held the church of St Peter's in Stamford which is said to have belonged to the church of Hambledon (figure 10). The same point is made in a reference to Albert's land in the account of Roteland itself (figure 11). However, we know from a charter of William Rufus that Albert had been granted all the churches of Roteland. We can, then, understand that St Peter's was the church of Queen Edith's manor here in Stamford. You are all familiar with the site of the church. It was adjacent to the castle and so it is likely the castle site too was originally in Roteland. If so, the whole area was moved into Lincolnshire to bring it under the control of the sheriff of Lincoln. In the later Middle Ages the combined lands were known as 'the castle and manor of Stamford'. Figure 10: Albert of Lorraine's church St Peter Figure 11: Albert's fee in Roteland The boundary between Roteland and Lincolnshire was moved out of the town to Ermine Street to the west. Domesday Book recognizes the change by describing the Roteland portion of Stamford in a postscriptal entry in the Northamptonshire folios where it is called Portland (figure 12). The churches of St Peter's and All Saints held land there under the king. In the later Middle Ages the area, the West Field of Stamford, was known as Sundersoken which means 'estate apart'. Figure 12: Portland Stamford in the late eleventh century Well, what does all of this tell us about the town in 1086? We can start with size. The assessment at 12½ hundreds, ie 150 carucates, tells us Stamford was by far the largest settlement in south Lincolnshire in terms of the tax it paid. The number of properties might be expected to give some indication of just how big it was (figure 13). In total 405½ are recorded. But the Latin term, mansio, plural mansiones, is an unknown quantity. It is usually translated as something like messuage or tenement; I have used the more neutral 'property' advisedly. What it was definitely not was a house: in Nottingham we have a reference to 3 mansiones in which there were 11 houses (domus). So, there were probably considerably more houses in Stamford in 1086. Moreover, the account is demonstrably incomplete. Although Stamford Baron was already in existence, no details are given. The earliest survey comes from 1125 when there were 74 properties of various kinds. Many of them must have been in existence in 1086. We must, then, be careful how we interpret the figures. It has often been stated, for example, that the castle was built on the fringe of settlement since only five mansiones were destroyed. In reality, we don't know how any houses this implies and anyway we are told only about those that had rendered dues to the king. Figure 13: summary Our numbers are uncertain, but we can say something more about the physical extent of the town north of the river. We have four explicit markers. First, there is the bridge. It was on the same site as today judging from the twelfth-century structure at its south end. Second, the castle, the earliest part of the extant structure being the motte, the present bus station. Third, St Peter's church, now marked by a mound on St Peter's Hill. Finally, All Saints church – later known as All Saints in the Market – which still stands in Red Lion Square. Although somewhat better than for some towns, this is seemingly a poor yield from such a detailed survey. Fortunately, though, other markers can be deduced from the later history of the fees described. In the early thirteenth century William de Lanvalie granted the church of St Clement's to St Michael's nunnery in Stamford. William was the lord of Wakerley and the successor to Eudo Dapifer. It seems likely, then, that one of the churches that Eudo held in 1086 was St Clements. It was situated somewhere close to Barn Hill House in Scotgate – skeletons have come to light from the garden – and so it seems that the area was already developed in 1086. William is not recorded as granting any other church, so the second one held by Eudo cannot be identified. Fastolf and his church present a more difficult problem. We have no record of who held in 1086, so we cannot trace its later descent. Its status, however, may provide a clue. It was quit, so it was held in chief of the king. This profile fits Holy Trinity outside St Paul's gate. In the thirteenth century it was the only church in Stamford that had its own court, as did other lords in Stamford who held in chief of the king. Finally, there is the land held by Crowland. Abbot Ulfketil is not recorded as holding a church. By the mid twelfth century, however, the abbey held St Michael's and this church is likely to mark at least one of Ulfketil's properties. We end up with a somewhat detailed topography for such an early period. By 1086 Stamford seems to have reached the full extent of the thirteenth-century town (figure 14). There were certainly no walls at this time – they are of later construction – but it is possible that even the line of the later defences, in part or whole, was already established. It might be doubtful, though, that the town was infilled to the same degree as later. Figure 14: the thirteenth-century town Despite such riches, ranking Stamford among the 70 or so boroughs of England in 1086 remains a difficult task, not the least because different units are used from town to town. Had all of them been measured in terms of mansiones, comparison would be possible. But they aren't. Beside mansiones we also find burgenses, domus, hagae, acrae, or a combination of two or more. So it is that value to the king is the best metric of size, as imperfect as it is (figure 15). Stamford rendered in total £78 in 1086. This does not put it in the Premier League of the English boroughs recorded in Domesday Book. Lincoln, York, Norwich and, of course, London although not fully described, were altogether much bigger and richer boroughs. But Stamford was well up in the First Division. Figure 15: the value of the town Conclusion Tonight I have confined myself to the Domesday evidence. There is, of course, a lot more evidence out there (figure 16). I have not touched on the archaeology, topography, nor numismatics. However, it is Domesday that provides the framework for understanding the early history of Stamford. The most important conclusion that Chris and I reached in 1982 was that the castle perpetuated a centre of authority of long standing. Adjacent to St Peter's church, it almost certainly replaced the manor house of Queen Edith's fee. That association in its turn provided context to late ninth-century defences that we found beneath the bailey. If we are looking at one area that we can identify as the origin of the town it is here. How it relates to the rest of the town is another story and another lecture. Figure 16: archaeology ©David Roffe 2018 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Early History of a Mormon Community in Stamford Submitted by Chris Hunt The Mormons.- This sect (‘Latter-day Saints’ as they call themselves) have taken the room lately occupied by the Wesleyans in Gas Lane, Stamford, for the purpose of giving lectures every Sunday. It was opened on the 20th ult. (October 20th 1850), with a speech by an American elder, and last Sunday two men, one a labourer named Grice, from a village in the neighbourhood, addressed the congregation, consisting of about 20 persons including children. One of them spoke at great length on baptismal regeneration; and from the arguments used, it might be supposed that he had just come from the hands of Bishop Philpot (Strict Baptist – North Street Chapel, Stamford), had he not said that the world had been without successors to the Apostles for several hundred years, until an Angel appeared to Joe Smith, and made a revelation to him, and now the Latter-day Saints had the same power as St Peter, to admit into heaven all who believe and are baptised in their faith. Source Stamford Mercury November 1st 1850 p3/c2 In 1851 the Church of Latter Day Saints’ was recorded in the Census of Religious Worship. GAS LANE LATTER DAY SAINTS’ CHAPEL 1851. Parish of St. George. Erected about the year 1836. Separate and entire building. Used exclusively as a place of worship. Free sittings 14. On 30th March (1851). In afternoon General Congregation 14. In evening General Congregation 17. Signed Henry Wilson, Elder. Larton (Laxton) Court, St Leonard’s Street. Source Lincolnshire Returns of the Census of Religious Worship 1851. Edited by R.W.Ambler, M.A. Published by the Lincoln Record Society Volume 72 (1979) page 4. Note Below Henry Wilson was born in Castle Bytham on May 9th 1809 and died on July12th 1882 and is buried in Salt Lake City Cemetery, Utah, USA. He was a baker and confectioner and was still living in St Leonard’s Street in 1861 with his wife Mary Ann Wilson. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back October 31st 1940 – The Luftwaffe Comes to Stamford Chris Hunt 2021 Today St Leonard’s Street is a quiet part of the town, far enough away from the High Street and Wharf Road to get little or no traffic, other than motorists trying to find a parking space. However, on Thursday October 31st 1940 the War came to this area when a large bomb which was reported at the time to have weighed close to a ton fell on Cornstall Buildings. A low flying lone German plane, possible a Heinkel 111, dropped a bomb which took off the roofs and chimney stacks of No 2 and 3 Cornstall Buildings before passing through No 17 Cornstall Buildings and demolishing a coal shed at the rear of the property. One side of the house had gone and there was a hole above the front door where the bomb had hit the building. Luckily the bomb did not explode. The occupier of No 17, Mrs Elsie Griffiths and her daughter Doreen had a very lucky escape as although in the house at the time sitting on the sofa, it was however reported that if they had been standing they would not have been so lucky. Immediately the emergency services were on hand to clear the area., which stretched from Maiden Lane to Brazenose Lane, and from St Paul’s Street to Wharf Road. Stamford School could only be accessed from Elm Street. The plane had come from the general direction of Wothorpe, spraying bullets over the Town before dropping the bomb. It was suggested at the time that the pilot had been aiming for the gas works which was only a hundred yards away on Wharf Road. The Town Council erected market stalls on Ironmonger Street so that those shopkeepers who had had to close their shops could continue trading, allowing their ‘registered customers’ to buy their rations. People evacuated from their houses found refuge in relatives and friends house across the town and others were found accommodation, bedding and food was provided from reserve stores held at the Fane School. Payments were made to householders under the Government Evacuation Scheme and those who had left their ration cards in their homes were issued with emergency ones from the Town Hall, and supplies of second-hand clothing was made available to those in need. The local bomb disposal team at the time was based in Ketton and they began the job of making the bomb safe. It was found to have a ninety-six-hour fuse which could have resulted by the Monday of destroying a large area at the eastern end of the town. Luckily for everyone it was defused on the Sunday and people were then allowed to return to their homes. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Blackstone & Co Works Rules 1916 Chris Hunt 2018 WORKS RULES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF BLACKSTONE & Co., Ltd., RUTLAND ENGINEERING WORKS STAMFORD February 28th 1916 1. Working Hours. The Buzzer will sound ten minutes before and at the times for commencing work, namely 6 a.m., 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. It will also sound at the times for leaving off work, namely, 8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5.30 p.m., and at 12 noon on Saturday. For night shifts the hours to be from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. 2. Meal Times. Day-time 8 to 8.30 a.m., and 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Night-time 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., with a break of 15 minutes at 2 p.m., during which period the machinery will not be stopped. 3. Overtime. Overtime is to be worked when, and to what extent required. All time lost during the week shall be made up before overtime is reckoned. 4. Orders. Orders and directions issued by the Managers and Foremen must be carried out promptly and efficiency. 5. Losing Time. Special attention must be paid to good time-keeping, in order that the output of the Establishment may be as effective as possible. Illness should be the sole justification for absence from work and such absence should be covered by a Doctor’ Certificate. 6. Piecework. Piece or contract work is to be worked as, when, and where required by the Management. In all cases of piecework the time rates will be guaranteed. 7. Time Recording. All men, when starting work, will be given a number and be provided with a card with the number upon it for use in the time-recording clocks. Upon this each man is expected to enter the time spent on the various jobs upon which he is employed. Great care is to be taken in booking the correct order numbers and quantities on his time card. All time cards must be given in each week to the Foreman on Wednesday night. Time Cards may be stamped in the morning any time from 5.50 to 6.30. Every minute made after6 will count, but after 6.30 no time can be booked until 8.30. Each man must stamp his card as follows: ----- On entering in the morning before breakfast. On commencing work after breakfast. On commencing work after dinner. On finishing for the day. The card must then be left in the proper partition provided in the box. Night hands must stamp on commencement at 6 p.m.: on leaving at 9 p.m.: on entering at 10 p.m.: and when leaving at 6 a.m. Cards must not be stamped more than ten minutes before working hours. Time will be made up and paid to the nearest quarter of an hour. Each man must see that his name, number, and the date are properly filled in. Under no circumstances can anyone stamp another’s card, by so doing he renders himself liable to instant dismissal, as also by defacing the stamping on his card. 8. Payment of Wages. Payment to be made at 12 noon on Saturday, with the exception of the night shift men, who will be paid at 6 p.m. on Fridays. 9. Care of Tools. Small tools are to be obtained from the tool room, and a check filled in by the man who receives such tools will be deposited in their place, which check will be given back when the tools are returned. Upon any man leaving or being discharged his tools must be given up to the Tool Room Foreman. Tools broken or not returned will be charged for at cost price. 10. Cleaning of Machines. No part of any machine or machinery is on any account to be cleaned or wiped down while any part of the machine is in motion. The cleaning or the wiping down of any machine or of any machinery is to be done only by those in charge of the machinery or machine tools, or by such other person as may be appointed by the Foreman or Works Manager. The last half-hour of Saturday morning is allowed for cleaning and is paid for at daywork rate. 11. Accidents. Any accident to persons or machinery is to be reported at once to the Foreman in charge. Workmen are strictly prohibited from putting on driving belts. This work, and the repairing of belts, is to be done only by the belt man or such person as may be appointed. Where belts have to be applied, or in cases where it is necessary to effect repairs to shafts, bearings, &c., the shafts must be at rest. Workmen are specially cautioned against wearing any loose jacket or sleeve or loose garment of any kind when working at, or in close proximity to, machines or machinery in motion, or which is liable to be put in motion. 12. Commencing and remaining at work. Every man will be provided with a copy of the Rules when starting work for the first time, and is expected to read and abide by them. When a man is engaged he must sign the works register and his signature will be his receipt for the book of rules. Every man must be in his place and at work immediately the buzzer has ceased to sound. All workman must enter and leave the works by the workmen’s entrance and make their way to and from their departments by the appointed roads and doors. 13. Absence from Work. Any man absenting himself without informing his foreman as to the cause, and who is absent for a period exceeding two consecutive days, must report himself to his Foreman before recommencing. 14. Fires. Workmen using portable fires are to exercise every precaution to eliminate any possibility of danger to the surroundings or building. No such fires may be lighted without orders. 15. Permit to leave the works during working hours. No one is allowed to pass out of the works during working hours, without a permit duly signed by the Foreman of the Department of the Works Manager. 16. Material. No material will be issued from the Stores without an order signed by the Foreman. 17. Offences. Any employee found guilty of any of the following offences shall be liable to a fine or to dismissal: --- Employing his time in carrying out work other than that for the Company. Loitering in the lavatories or using them for any purpose other than those for which they are intended. Talking, other than connected with the business, and loitering in the works or being away from his department or work without permission. Breaking open any fast lock place or opening or removing tools, &c., from any workman’s drawer or tool chest or from a bench or machine without authority. Smoking within the work gates during ordinary working hours. Bringing intoxicating liquor, or being intoxicated within the works. Bringing any person into the works without permission. Using waste, oil or any articles otherwise than as directed or for the purpose for which same is given out. Taking chips or any articles whatever out of the works without a permit signed by the Works Manager. Refusing to obey any lawful order of the Manager, Foreman or other Superintendent. Committing any act of dishonesty. Taking Time Cards off the rack other than their own. 18. Holidays. The following holidays shall be observed as works holidays. EASTER. The Works will close at 1 o’clock on the Thursday before Good Friday and be reopened on the following Tuesday morning at 8.30 o’clock. WHITSUNTIDE. The Works will close on the Saturday before Whitsun, and be re-opened on the following Tuesday morning at 8.30 o’clock. AUGUST. The Works will close on the Saturday before Bank Holiday at 12 o’clock, and be re-opened on the following Tuesday at 8.30 o’clock. The Annual Holiday will be fixed as nearly as possible for the last week in August. CHRISTMAS. The Works will close on Christmas Eve at 1 o’clock and there will be two days’ holiday in addition to Christmas Day, the Works re-opening on the third day after Christmas Day at 8.30 o’clock. These Holidays are liable to alteration as and when determined by the conditions existing at the period the holiday falls due, and notices regarding same will be posted in due time. Note The original rule book measures three inches by four and a half inches. The eighteen rules are printed in a small type face on nine pages of a twelve page pamphlet in red covers. The date February 28th 1916 is printed on the title page. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A novel match - World War One munition girls play football 1917 One of the interesting and amusing football matches ever seen in Stamford was played on the New Cross Road ground on Saturday afternoon, when eleven of Messrs. Blackstone & Co.’s munition girls played Blackstone’s F.C. The girls wore the regulation men’s soccer clothes, whilst as headgear they were wearing the familiar blue and red munition mob caps. A large crowd assembled and the members of the fair sex came in for plenty of applause and good-humoured chaffing. Of course, they were outclassed by their opponents, who, it should be said, had to play with their hands tied with tape behind their backs. There were many humorous interludes, especially when the girls handled the ball (without being penalised), if such an action would help them score or prevent the men from scoring. Munition Girls After a pleasantly contested game, the girls had to admit defeat by 10 goals to 7. In the first half Miss Sandall, who also officiated as “lineswoman”, kicked off, while after the interval Mrs T. W. Pinder set the ball rolling. A pleasing incident occurred when Miss Sandall was presented with a nice bouquet by the munition girls. Mr E. Dunn was referee and Mr J. Porter the other linesman. The teams were as follows:- Blackstone’s Works F.C. - S. E. Laxton; P. Hardwick, and J. Starsmore; J. Charity, A. A. Leonard (captain), and A. Nutt; A. Loweth, A. Farrow, A. Walker, J. Tomms, and D. Ringham. Blackstone’s Munition Girls:- Misses C. Holmes; E. Drage, and H. Birch; M. Brewin, M. Turner, and C. Piggot; A. Tomms, F. Barlow (captain), N. Cummins, E. Rudkin, and S. Lilly. The goals for the girls were scored by Miss Tomms (4), Miss Lilly (2), and Miss Rudkin (1); for the Works by Walker (2), Nutt (1), Charity (1), Farrow (1), Ringham (2), Tomms (2), and Loweth (1). The gate realised £5 16s 0d, and the match was a benefit for Mr. F. Palmer who sustained a severe sprain in a recent match. The secretary (Mr. H. W. Simpson) admirably made the arrangements. Source Stamford & Rutland News, and South Lincolnshire & North Northamptonshire Chronicle (Wednesday) October 31st 1917 p6/c1 Notes The game was played on Saturday October 27th 1917. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford and the Gough Map, The Earliest Known Image of the Town. Chris Hunt 2014 In 1809 Richard Gough donated a medieval map to the Bodleian Library which today bears his name. The age of the map is uncertain. The previous owner of the map to Gough believed that it dated from the reign of Edward III (1327-1377), whilst scholarship in the 19th century considered a date of c.1300. Historical evidence from the map itself suggested a date between 1355 and 1366. The reasons behind these dates is that the image of Coventry shows a city wall which was first constructed in 1355, and the latter date of 1366 as in that year the town of Sheppey in Kent was renamed Queenborough. More recent studies have however suggested a later date for the map based on handwriting and stylistic evidence towards then end of the 14th century and then revised as late as the 1430’s. Although of course the original map may date from the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and the Gough Map is a later revised and updated copy produced in the time of his grandson. The map has the east to the top of map with the west to the bottom of the page. Stamford is shown on the Gough Map as a walled town with two gates and a church with a spire on a river which is shown in green (on the image below). A road running from the south in this image (top right) which crosses another water course at Wansford, then passes through Stamford before going north to Grantham (bottom left). A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A Christmas Card from the 46th North Midland Division Submitted By Chris Hunt Note Below. The 46th (North Midland) Division was a Territorial Force formed in 1908 which saw service on the Western Front during the Great War. The above image has the Battle of Waterloo memorial to the right and what looks like Pit Heads. The Pit Heads are a reminder of the Battle of Loos in 1915 where the Division fought and where many Stamford lads died in the unsuccessful attempt to take and hold the Hohenzollern Redoubt . A Printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Weather in Stamford In April 1641, a very heavy rain, accompanied by a high west wind, caused a flood which covered the bridge. On Saturday November 1, 1736, a very high wind blew down a windmill on the west side of the town, and did much damage. On the 4th of May, 1800, a most dreadful storm passed over Stamford: the thunder and lightning were terrific, and the hailstones destroyed nearly all the windows facing the south-west. On Friday, the 31st August 1821, a shower, which did not last an hour, inundated the town. In Protection-place, Scotgate, the water was six feet high, and potatoes, apples, plums, onions, &c. were conveyed by the stream from the market, down Maiden-lane and the Hotel-yard: the electric fluid struck the house occupied by Mr. Samuel Watson, tanner, in Blackfriar’s-street, and partly uncovered the roof: this storm extended only a mile round Stamford. On the 10th of June, 1822, there was a severe tempest of thunder and lightning, which did much damage in the neighbourhood; and on the 28th of the following month a heavy storm of thunder, lightning, and hail took place. In 1823 on the 27th January, the streets were so covered with ice, that many persons skated from Scotgate to the top of High-Street. On the 14th January, 1827, Emlyn’s-close tree was split in two by a violent hurricane, and 50 feet of the main stem was brought to the ground. 1830. On account of the exceeding wetness of the summer months this year, there were greater and more frequent floods in the River Welland than had occurred for many years previous: and the meadows becoming inundated, caused a greater loss of sheep, by the rot, than had ever before been experienced. 1833. August 31st, there occurred a tremendously high wind from the N.W., which was supposed to have been the greatest wind since November 10th, 1810. The roofs of buildings were much damaged by the removal of many slates and tiles; but happily, further than this no material injury was done. SOURCE CHRONOLOGY OF STAMFORD BY GEORGE BURTON, 1846, PAGE 308, PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY ROBERT BAGLEY A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next