< Back Obituary and Records – July 1810 At Stamford, died, aged 70, George Bindby. He was a very eccentric character, and dealt in toys, oranges, &c., with which he attended the neighbouring markets and fairs. The room in which he slept was so filled with goods, that he was obliged to climb over them in order to get into bed, which was situated within half a yard of a window that had scarcely a whole pane of glass in it. His family had received relief from All Saints parish, he always pleaded poverty, and giving them to understand that if they relied on him for any assistance they must starve; notwithstanding which he died possessed of property to the amount (it was supposed) of £1000, which he bequeathed, the day he died, to a person in no way related to him. At a sale of his effects, there was a turn-out of very many curious articles of every description, such as old knives, buckles, spurs, pistols, &c., which would at the present day produce much competition among antiquaries. Source: Obituary and Records for the Counties of Lincoln, Rutland & Northampton by Justin Simpson, page 99. Printed by William R Newcomb, Stamford 1861. Submitted by Ronnie Teasdale. Note: £1,000 pound sterling was worth £46,525.20 in 2017 according to The National Archives website. In 1810 this would buy: 95 horses; 200 cows; 111 stones of wool; 175 quarters of wheat; and 6,666 days wages for a skilled tradesman. They go on to state - The result of this calculation is intended to be a general guide to historical values, rather than a categorical statement of fact. The Bank of England website gives a November 2025 value of £68,497.34, based on £1,000 in 1810. A print version of this can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Jeffery & Blackstone BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Jeffery & Blackstone – Royal Letters Patent Plate 1884 The firm that became Blackstone & Co started back in 1837 by members of the Smith family. Following several ownership and name changes George Jeffery entered into partnership with Edward Christopher Blackstone in 1877 and although George retired to Ryhall in 1882 the company continued as Jeffery & Blackstone until 1888. During these years the company works was sited at the west end of St. Peter’s Street, including Bonney’s Paddock which was leased from Stamford Borough Council and traded as the Rutland Terrace Iron Works, New Iron and Brass Foundry and Agricultural Manufactory. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

< Back Stamford Improvement Commission Meeting. Foul Smells in Stamford 1854 Submitted by Chris Hunt Mr English pointed out the great necessity that existed for an inspection of nuisances in the town. Fever was prevalent in some parts, and noxious smells from pigsties and cesspools had a tendency to increase the epidemic. He did not exactly know upon which public body the burden lay for correcting the evil, but it must be apparent to everyone that with fever in the town and cholera in the country, the utmost precaution should be taken to ensure general cleanliness. Mr. Paradise said he was glad the subject had been mentioned, for though the duty pointed out properly came under the direction of the Poor-law Guardians, it could not be too strongly urged before each local Board. There were some places in the town so exceedingly offensive that it was not at all surprising to hear of the prevalence of fever; and those who knew the value to a community of sanitary precautions could not interfere too actively to procure the abatement of nuisances. Mr Horden and the Chairman said it was very desirable that an inspector should be appointed at the present critical time ’ and the Clerk having explained that the duty of instructing and paying an inspector was by the Legislature imposed on the Poor-law Board, it was agreed by several Guardians present to introduce the subject at the Union meeting on the following day. SOURCE STAMFORD MERCURY (FRIDAY) SEPTEMBER 1ST 1854 p3/c2 Note Stamford was not a genteel town with modern Victorian infrastructure in 1854 and was still restricted in its growth by the then Marquess of Exeter. The above report comes from a meeting of the Stamford Improvement Commission held on August 29th 1854. The commissioners present on the day were Messrs. Fysh (chairman), Horden, Wright, Sandall, Paradise, Duncomb, Howes, English, Groves, Baker and Lumby. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Water Supply Issues in Stamford (Washing Clothes and Making Beer) 1550. Submitted by Chris Hunt It is ordained that no manner of person or persons shall wash any clothes at any conduits, nor within the waters of St John’s well, or at Peter’s well, upon pain of every time so taken to forfeit 4d and 3d to them that shall present such offender to the Alderman. Also that no common brewer shall fetch any water at the conduits before six o’clock in the morning upon pain of 12d. (Order of) John Fenton Alderman. November 14th 1550, Source Stamford Mercury Friday November 21st 1873 p4 Hall Book 2A/1/1 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Willcocks Kitchen Range BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Joseph William Willcocks Kitchen Range (c.1880 to 1909) Hidden away in the cellar of 62 High Street is this fine Victorian kitchen range. Now long out of use, but still solidly built, below what could be a century of rust. The coal chute from the street above is blocked and access to what would be a museum piece is through a series of cellars. The building above was the old Stamford Mercury offices, originally just in No. 62, and later extended into No. 61, to become a substantial structure where the newspaper was prepared for the print works out the back. Clearly the many re-builds in the 20 th century did not touch the cellar where this kitchen range provided sustenance originally to the Editor and his family who lived “above the shop”. The range has a Joseph Willcocks’ retailer’s cast-iron badge. Joseph William Willcocks’ (1853-1909) business at the top of St. Mary’s Hill was based in 14 St. Mary’s Street where he carried out a successful ironmongery business from the early 1880s until his death in February 1909. At probate he left £10,791 16s 4d, a not untidy sum for the time. Living above the shop, he moved to Broadmead House on Tinwell Road in later life. He was described as an ironmonger, oil, and colourman. Families who were “in trade“, and employed “live in servants”, had the servants working in the cellars and sleeping in the attics; the ground floor was for business, and the first floor was living accommodation for the family. How many other buildings in the centre of town still have such reminders of the past hidden away in their cellars? DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

< Back Adam Horsley – Rector of St John the Baptist. A Stamford 14th Century Cleric By Chris Hunt From 1369 to 1385, Adam Horsley was the rector of St John the Baptist Church in Stamford. Not the building we see today, which dates from the middle of the 15 th century, but an earlier structure whose origin is uncertain, on what was the boundary of the original Danish Burh and the post Norman Conquest growth towards the town’s Castle. The patronage of the church had been controlled by the Priory of St Fromonde in Normandy, an alien priory, but it had been appropriated by Edward III, and was therefore in the hands of the Crown when Adam was granted the living in 1369. Danish and Saxon Burh map Adam Horsley was a King’s Clerk, an exchequer clerk, and a controller of the great pipe roll from 1375 to 1382. He was then appointed as foreign apposer of the exchequer from 1382 to 1385, a post that audited sheriffs’ accounts. In 1377 an English clerical poll tax assessment took place and he was described as ‘not resident’, unique in the arch deaneries of Lincoln, Leicester and Stowe. If Adam visited his parish, it was probably only when the Royal Court passed through the town. And although Richard II visited Stamford in 1377, when he held a council of war in the town, there is no evidence that Adam was in attendance. In the 1380s Horsley was in correspondence with an Augustinian canon, Walter Hilton, who was his spiritual counsellor, it seems that Horsley had a troubled conscience. A letter from Walter Hilton titled “ On the Usefulness and Prerogatives of Religion” , addressed to Adam and probably written in 1384, has survived these last six hundred years appearing in print before the Reformation. In the early 1380s, Hilton turned away from the world and became a solitary, as he is described in his earliest extant work, a Latin letter “ On the Image of Sin”. In October 1383 Adam sat in the Westminster Parliament, a tax raising parliament, in the sixth year and already the tenth parliament of the reign of Richard II. When the King had turned sixteen, he became more settled in his own choices, all be it fatal to his reign and ultimately his life. Finally in March 1385 Adam resigned both his living in Stamford and ceased working for the Crown. Shortly after, he entered Beauvale Priory (also known as Beauvale Charterhouse) which was a Carthusian monastery in Nottinghamshire. In 1385, Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent died, she had been the wife of the Black Prince and was mother of Richard II, and was buried in Stamford, however, by the time of her death Adam was no longer the Rector of St John’s. Although the date of Adam’s death has not survived these last six hundred years, it seems that this occurred within a few years of him entering the monastery. Chris Hunt January 2023 Notes. An apposer is an archaic term for an examiner or a person who asks questions , historically referring to an officer in the English Court of Exchequer who audited sheriffs’ accounts. It describes someone whose specific duty was to put questions to test knowledge. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

the townspeople, millers and the Cecils < Back The Cecil's Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 Dr D.L. Thomas 1982 In this article (first published in the Stamford Historian in 1982) Dr. D. L. Thomas examines the Cecil monopoly on milling in Stamford during the late 16th and early 17th centuries; and looks at the disputes between the townspeople, the Cecil family and other millers in the area. The Cecil Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 Sleepy King’s Mill was, in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a source of bitter disputes between the townspeople, the Cecil family and other millers in the neighbourhood. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth granted her principal secretary, Sir William Cecil, the manor of Stamford, the tolls and profits of the markets in Stamford, together with certain water mills in Stamford called North Mills situated next to the castle.[1] This grant marked an important stage in Cecil’s domination of the town, which had a profound effect on the development of Stamford. [2] The mills acquired by Cecil, referred to as North Mills in the grant, were also known as ‘the queen’s mills’, presumably because they had been granted to the unfortunate Jane Seymour as part of her jointure. By 1627, the property was also being referred to as King’s Mill.[3] Ownership of the mill gave the Cecils a theoretical monopoly of milling in the town. All inhabitants of the town and borough and all tenants of the manor of Stamford were obliged by custom ‘the tyme whereof the memory of man ys not to the contrary’, to grind all their corn and malt at King’s mill.[4] There was another mill in the town called Hudd’s Mill which was owned by the corporation. This can perhaps be characterized as a ‘marginal mill’. It had been built to provide additional grinding capacity in the town at times when King’s Mill was over-burdened. Tenants and inhabitants of Stamford had to obtain the permission of the owner of King’s Mill to take their corn to Hudd’s Mill.[5] This monopoly seems to have been resented by the inhabitants of Stamford and the Cecils had to obtain the support of the Court of Exchequer to enforce it. As far as can be judged – and relevant evidence is somewhat scanty, the people of Stamford were not opposed to the Cecil monopoly because the Cecils were harsh and greedy monopolists. Rather, they were inconvenienced by the monopoly because King’s Mill was too small to deal with all the corn and malt of the inhabitants of Stamford. Rather than wait long periods for their corn and malt to be ground, they used other mills. In 1601, Sir Thomas Cecil, Lord Burghley, brought an action in the Exchequer to defend his monopoly. He claimed that Thomas Robinson, the miller of Ryhall, and Gregory Harlington, the miller of Casterton, kept pack-horses ‘and doe contynuallie fetch, carie and recary the corne and gristes of the Inhabitants of the said towne and borough of Stamford.... to the great losse and hinderaunce of your said orator, his ten(a)ntes and ffermors’. William Salter had built a horse mill in Stamford where he ground his own corn and that of other inhabitants. Various residents of the town had set up querns or hand mills, while others simply refused ‘to grynde their corne and grists att the said water mylnes contrary to auncient usage and custome of the towne’.[6] The occupations of the recalcitrant Stamfordians are revealing. Among those to have set up querns were three innkeepers, George Parysh, Lionel Fetherstone and Jeffrey Harrupp alias Baker. These men presumably wanted querns to grind malt for brewing. William Winckes, a baker, was one who had refused to use Cecil’s mill. The other people against whom Cecil brought action were Nicholas Lambe, a draper, Robert Meadows and Robert Ramsden, mercers, Robert Storer, a carpenter, John Smithson, a cordwainer and two ‘gentlemen’, Reynold Waters and John Caldecote of Ketton. The inhabitants of Stamford made no defence to Cecil’s action, admitting their faults and submitting to the judgement of the court. The fact that the Stamfordians did not make any counter-claim against Cecil is probably an indication that Cecil was not too greedy a monopolist. The Exchequer, although willing to enforce local monopolies, normally took care to ensure that they were administered reasonably. In 1589, the Exchequer had ordered that the tenants and inhabitants of Grantham should grind their corn at the queen’s mill in Grantham, but had ordered the court-leet of Grantham to fine millers if they oppressed any of the tenants.[7] The Exchequer decreed that the defendants and all other inhabitants of Stamford should grind all their corn and grain at Cecil’s mill and ‘shall continewe their suits to the said mylnes called the Queenes mills in such sorte as they have of auncient tyme used and accustomed to doe’.[8] Immediate opposition to this decree seems to have come from Thomas Robinson, miller of Ryhall. In his answer to Cecil’s action, he claimed that if he could not obtain grain from Stamford, his mill ‘will not bee half the weeke sett on worke and thereby fall to great ruine and decaye’. He admitted that he was only the sub-tenant of Ryhall mill; the ultimate owner of the mill was none other than Thomas Cecil. Robinson said that ‘in testymonye of the great reverence and duetie that in all humbleness he acknowledgeth to beare’ to Cecil, he would not, in future, grind any grain from Stamford ‘though to hys great hinderance and losses beinge a very poore mann’.[9] Nine months later, the Exchequer heard that Robinson was still carrying corn from Stamford, William Winckes was still not bringing grain to King’s Mill and the other defendants were still using their querns. The court ordered the arrest of the defendants.[10] The threat of further action seems to have achieved the desired effect; there is no evidence of any further proceedings in this case. A monopoly, however, was still a monopoly and by the reign of Charles I, it was once more under attack. In 1639, William, Earl of Exeter, brought an action in the Exchequer against 234 inhabitants of Stamford. He claimed that they had combined amongst themselves with the purpose of destroying his monopoly. Various of them had sent their corn to be ground at Hudd’s Mill without Exeter’s permission, others had sent their corn outside the town to be ground, while some had set up querns and horsemills within the town. Worse, the banks and sluices at Hudds Mill had been extended, with the result that ‘by often and sudden stoppinge and lettinge downe of the said fludgates and sluces, the said complainant’s said mills lyinge on the same streame above the said hudds mill had been oftentimes held in by back waters and soe choaked therewith that they were not able to goe’. The Stamfordians for the most part fared better than they had done in 1601. They agreed that they were obliged to grind their corn at Exeter’s mill; the court ordered that all querns and horsemills within the town be demolished, while the court also considered taking action to end the problems caused by the developments at Hudd’s Mill. There was, however, one major concession; Exeter was ordered to grind the Stamfordians’ corn within due and reasonable time.[11] A few Stamfordians fared rather better, probably as a result of good legal advice. The Exchequer could compel tenants of Stamford manor and inhabitants of the town to grind their corn at King’s Mill. There were however, a number of tenants of other manors within Stamford; the Exchequer could not compel these people to grind their corn at King’s Mill, because as manorial tenants, they were obliged to grind their corn at the mill belonging to the lord of their manor. Thus it was that certain tenants who held land of the crown’s manor of East Greenwich and the Dutchy of Lancaster’s honour of Bolingbroke were given liberty to grind their corn where they saw fit.[12] This liberty was also granted to tenants of ‘Cuthbert’s Fee’ ; this was a manor which had belonged to St. Leonard’s Priory; curiously enough, it belonged to the Cecil family.[13] Eight tenants of ‘town houses’ belonging to the corporation were also given liberty to grind their corn where they saw fit. The Exchequer’s decree was rigorously enforced. In 1642, Elizabeth, Countess of Exeter, complained that Nicolas Lambe, a brewer, had been grinding malt at his own horse mill. The Exchequer committed Lambe to the Fleet prison until his mill was demolished.[14] Exeter also sought to deal with millers from outside the town. In 1637, he brought an action against William Robinson, tenant of Tinwell mill and Sir Francis Bodenham, tenant of Ryhall mill. Exeter claimed that these men had charged half the normal rate for grinding corn and had carried corn from Stamford to grind at their mills.[15] Bodenham quickly admitted his fault and submitted to Exeter. This was hardly surprising; Bodenham leased Ryhall mill from Exeter and needed Exeter’s support to maintain his monopoly of milling in Ryhall. In 1640, Exeter and Bodenham brought an action against the millers of Tolethorpe, Newstead, Tinwell and Tallington for grinding corn from Ryhall. William Robinson’s case was somewhat different. Tinwell mill belonged to Exeter and had been leased to Robinson in 1631. Robinson had rebuilt the mill, doubling its size from two pairs of stones to four pairs. Exeter claimed that Robinson was grinding corn from Stamford. Worse, by expanding his mill dam, Robinson was depriving King’s Mill of water so ‘that oft tymes the said Earles milles in Stamford cannot grinde for fowre and twentie howers together and usuallie in sumer are hindred from working eighte howers together in everye daie.’ At other times, Robinson would suddenly open his sluice gates ‘whereby the waters gushing downe the streame in great quantities with muche violence doe overflowe and breake the Bankes of the saide Earles mill dames’.[17] Robinson’s defence is very revealing. He denied that he had unlawfully expanded his mill dam and claimed that the expansion of Tinwell mill had been done with the permission of Exeter. He argued that his expansion of Tinwell mill was done for the good of the inhabitants of Stamford. He argued that because of lack of water and because it only had a small dam, King’s Mill could not (especially in summer) grind all the corn of the inhabitants of Stamford.[18] Robinson’s argument illuminates the long dispute between the Cecils and the residents of Stamford. It may well be that local opposition to the Cecil’s monopoly was stimulated because King’s Mill was not large enough to cope with all the grain of the people of Stamford. The Exchequer decree in the case of Exeter against the inhabitants of Stamford had insisted that the millers of King’s Mill grind the corn of the inhabitants of Stamford within due and reasonable time. The decree in the case of Exeter against Robinson, issued a year later on 11th May 1640, went even further. The Exchequer decreed that the inhabitants and residents of Stamford must bring their corn and grain to be ground at King’s Mill ‘provided that it cannot bee ground there within eight and ffortie howers that then they may take it awaye to bee ground elswhere’.[19] This proviso seems to have satisfied all parties and, as far as is known at present, the dispute was ended. Notes Calendar of Patent Rolls 1560-1563, 165-166. On the long-term impact of the Cecils’ control of the town, see J.M. Lee, Modern Stamford in Alan Rogers, ed., The Making of Stamford (Leicester 1965). 91-104 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of Historical Monuments: The Town of Stamford (London 1977), 65. Public Record Office, Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Bills, Answers, etc. (E112/25/287) All references to documents are to records preserved in the Public Record Office. Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Entry Books of Decrees and Orders, Series III (E125/26f.158r). E112/25/287. Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Entry Books of Decrees and Orders. Series I (E123/14 f.309r) E123/28 fos.151-152 E112/25/287. E123/28 f.337 E125/26 fos.157-162; the proceedings in the case do not seem to survive On tenture as of the manor of East Greenwich, see Joel Hurstfield, The Greenwich Tenures of the Reign of Edward VI, Law Quarterly Review , LXV (1949), 72-81; such tenants were normally people who held land which had been sold by the crown. Thomas Tanner, Notitia Monastica, ed. by James Naismith (Cambridge, 1737) sub Lincoln LXXII E125/29 fos. 153r, 182v-183v E112/200/192 E112/202/279 E112/200/192 Ibid. And E112/202/283 E125/26 f. 438v A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Browne's Hospital Property; an 1845 terrier Prof Alan Rogers Browne's Hospital was a major Stamford charity which besides the hospital, bearing its name, on Broad Street was also a major land and property owner. The PDF below is a copy of the terrier compiled in 1845 of all of the property owned by Browne's Hospital in the town of Stamford. It does not include the significant parcels of land outside of the towm walls and in other locations further afield. Land owned north of the town in what was called the Open Fields was enclosed in 1875. The document below is important as it contains descriptions, site plans, names of tenants and names of owners of adjacent properties. A copy of the terrier can be accessed HERE Previous Next

< Back NEW LANDLORD AND REFURBISHMENT AT THE GEORGE INN 1725 Submitted by Chris Hunt The George Inn in St Martins, alias Stamford Baron, Northamptonshire, being the largest and best Inn in Town, is being kept by Jonathan Smith, late of the Bear Inn at Reading, Berkshire, is just now new furnished; therefore is ready for the Entertainment of Persons of Quality and Others, with good Usage. N.B. He sells full Market Measure of Corn in the Stables. Source. Stamford Mercury (Thursday) April 8th 1725 p11/c2. Note. In 1725 the Stamford Mercury was published on a Thursday. The pages were not numbered by issue. A Printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Carmen Nuptiale On the Marriage of Lord and Lady Burghley, September 7th 1875 Submitted By Chris Hunt Our Church bells loud are ringing, Our Streets with garlands gay, For Burghley’s Heir to Burghley His Bride’s brings home to-day; One more bright link is added To that ancestral chain, Which binds the heart of Stamford To Cecil’s old domain. Chorus. Then let this prayer of welcome Resound on every side: “God bless the Heir of Burghley,” “And bless his youthful Bride.” The Whichcote’s witching glances Have charmed her Soldier’s heart, And Mars, as erst, to Venus, Hath played the Captive’s part; But now, in turn, the Captives His Captor holds in thrall, And thrones her as his consort In Burghley’s lordly Hall. Chorus. May Heaven send brightest sunshine To gild their onward way, And smile upon their future, As it has smiled today; Should clouds o’ercast that sunshine With shadows from above, May they sustain each sorrow Strong in each other’s love. Chorus. In Bride and noble Bridegroom, May all delight to trace His Father’s kindly virtues, His Mother’s winning grace; So shall the House of Burghley Support its ancient fame, And pass to future ages Its old and honour’d name. Chorus. Then let the prayer of welcome Re-echo far and wide, “God bless the Heir of Burghley.” “And bless his youthful Bride.” A.R.W. (author unknown) Source An Undated Newspaper Cutting inserted in a book owned by Justin Simpson. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

J Brumhead - Silver Watch BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL John Brumhead – Silver Pocket Watch The silver case was hall marked in London in 1809, so dates from the time of John Brumhead senior. Inside the case are two local repair labels, one from M. Goltman, Watch and Clock Maker, High Street, and another from J. Hicks, Watch and Clock Maker, Ironmonger Street. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next