< Back Political Pressures - Eighteenth Century style John Hartley 2019 Many years ago, WG Hoskins pleaded for historians, and especially local historians, to leave their studies with their books and documents to get out and use their eyes and feet to learn about their area. A sunny Easter Day some years ago provided just such an opportunity. A “church crawl” fitted the afternoon, first to Barnack, so well-known for its Saxon tower and much more, and then to the apparently little regarded Bainton Church, a mile or so to the east. Bainton Church, beside a busy country road and across the way from a medieval cross base of considerable proportions is nevertheless, as the guidebooks would have, “a haven of peace and quiet” with various interesting architectural features. What caught my eye, and awoke my interest, was a (relatively) simple mid-eighteenth-century memorial on the wall of the north aisle to a member of the Henson family, a surname which occurs frequently in Stamford over a considerable period of time. In 1734 there had been a hotly contested election to choose the two Members of Parliament to which the town was then entitled. Great efforts were made to make sure the ‘right’ candidates won; Alan Rogers’s description (on p.75 of his Book of Stamford, Buckingham 1983) makes the situation abundantly clear: “The town was flooded with outsiders who were alleged to have the vote; bribes were paid and voters and officials were intimidated by both sides...” All this to ensure the successful election of “tory” candidates chosen by the Noels of Exton and the Cecils of Burghley rather than the Cust/Bertie “whig” axis representing the earls of Lindsey based at Grimsthorpe and Uffington. While there is plenty of evidence available about this election, including a fine printed Poll Book and significant correspondence, there has been no extended study; the fullest account so far may be found in Dr Till’s A Family Affair [Rugby 1990] pp.33-5. However, Till’s account makes no reference to this memorial to Robert Henson in Bainton Church which so neatly sums up the 1734 situation which confronted Henson as Mayor, and therefore the Returning Officer for the town. As so often in memorials to public figures of the period there is no religious sentiment whatsoever in the inscription, just an indication that he “did his duty” in an exemplary manner. Memorial to Robert Henson The inscription reads: In memory of ROBERT HENSON Gent./who dep. this life June 30th 1755 Aged 69/ In the year 1734 (when Parties ran high)/ He was Returning Officer/for the Burrough of Stamford./ His Conduct and Integrity was such / that he not only Obtain’d the Approbation / But Applause / Of all Wise and Honest Men: / Bribes not being able to corrupt / Promises Seduce / Nor Threats Deter him / From doing his Duty. No doubt, by the standards of the time, Henson deserved this encomium – modern readers and writers might feel very differently! Later an extra section was added to the inscription: Bridget his wife, daughter of William Cheselden gent of Manton Rutland, died 13 July 1757 aged 71 was also buried here. While there is no substitute for careful research, serendipity may help the historian significantly! John Hartley A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Men of Stamford in the Hundred Years War David Large 2021 Introduction to the paper “Men from Stamford, Lincolnshire, Commanded by Edmund of Langley Duke of York (1341-1402): Comparison of Names in the Poll Tax and the Soldiers’ Databases.” This paper is one of a series published in the ‘Soldier Profiles’ section of ‘The Soldier in Medieval England’ website. This major UK medieval history project was developed by Professor Anne Curry and Adrian Bell (Southampton and Reading Universities), supported by a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. In summary, the team collated and digitised 250,000 records of soldier service records held in archives in England, France and elsewhere, naming the men who fought in the Hundred Years War, and made them available in a searchable Database. The aim has been to shed more light on the men who fought in the war, both the archers and the men at arms. https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/the-project/ https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/ MEN FROM STAMFORD, LINCOLNSHIRE, COMMANDED BY EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OF YORK (1341-1402): COMPARISON OF NAMES IN THE POLL TAX AND SOLDIERS’ DATABASES. Recent work on soldiers named ‘Large’ compared names found in both the Poll Tax and in the Medieval Soldier Databases, in combination with the network connections and landed interests of the captains and commanders of the campaigns in which they served. This provided innovative, new insights into the likely places of origin of the soldiers, which, until now, have been generally unknown. In some cases, other family members and occupations of men who fought in the Hundred Years War, have emerged (See ‘Using the Poll Tax to identify Medieval Archers?’ )[1] The following study examines the Medieval Soldier database from the perspective of an English town in the last quarter of the 14th century, Stamford in Lincolnshire (in the Part of Kesteven). Lincolnshire is in the east midlands of England. The Parts have long been an administrative subdivision of the county. ‘Kesteven’ is said to derive from the Celtic ced (a wood) and the OId Norse stefna (a meeting place). The name Ceostefne became Kestevene by 1194, well before the period of interest in this piece of work. [2] Stamford was selected for this preliminary study because the 1379 Poll Tax list for the town appears intact, and because the castle, manor and town of Stamford had been held for many years by Edmund of Langley.[3] If it were to be the case that men were recruited, or volunteered for military service from one of the estates held by a Lord of the Manor, then it might be possible to find evidence of this by comparing names entered in the Poll Tax for the place, with names on the Soldiers’ database. A study of this type may provide useful pointers towards men who fought in the Hundred Years War with France, from the point of view of a community rather than individual soldiers, researched previously.[4] Edmund of Langley Edmund of Langley (born at Kings Langley Palace, Hertfordshire), lived from 1341-1402, and was the fifth born, but fourth surviving, son of Edward III, King of England, Lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine (1312-1377) and his wife, Philippa of Hainault. The first son, William of Hatfield (Yorkshire) died in early infancy in March 1337. Edmund of Langley’s three surviving older brothers were Edward the Black Prince (1330-1376), who predeceased his father; Lionel of Antwerp, 1st duke of Clarence (1338-1368), and John of Gaunt, the first royal duke of Lancaster (1340-1399) who was the father of Henry (Bolingbroke), later King Henry IV (reigned 1399-1413). All of Edward’s surviving sons had military careers during the Hundred Years War. Edmund’s three younger brothers were Thomas of Windsor (1347-1348), William of Windsor (1348-1348), and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st duke of Gloucester (1355-1397).[5] Edmund of Langley was created earl of Cambridge in 1362 when he reached the age of 21, and on 6 August 1385, during the campaign of Richard II to Scotland, was also made the 1st duke of York.[6] He married (i) Isabella of Castile, with whom he had two sons and a daughter, and (ii) Joan Holland (a niece of Richard II), his second cousin once removed, who had no issue.[7] As the son of a king, Edmund was given a number of possessions by his father, including the manor of Stamford, details of which are as follows: “Edmund Langley, fifth son of Edward III, became lord of Stamford: although he was only six years old when his father granted him all of Earl Warenne’s castles, manors and lands beyond the Trent, with the castle and manor of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. In 1363 Edmund was given by his father a grant in fee of the castle, manor, and town of Stamford, and of the manor of Grantham.”[8] John de Warenne (7th earl of Surrey) had been lord of Stamford before Edmund succeeded to the title, and in 1342 (16 Edward III) Warenne was “to provide 40 men at arms, and a hundred archers for his service in France; requesting him to be at London in person on the octaves of S. Hilary, there to treat & agree with his council touching the wages for those soldiers in that expedition.”[9] Edmund also acquired lands, estates and manors in Yorkshire, Tynedale (Northumberland), Wiltshire, Essex, Buckinghamshire and Norfolk.[10] In November 1374 he was appointed, together with John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, to be the king’s lieutenant in the duchy of Brittany.[11] His other responsibilities included Governor and Constable of Dover Castle between June 1376 and August 1381,[12] Warden of the Cinque Ports,[13] and Keeper of the Bailiwick of the Forests of Rutland and Leighfield in May 1388.[14] Edmund held two estates in Hertfordshire, the county of his birth: the manor of Hitchen,[15] and the manor and motte and bailey castle of Anstey, East Hertfordshire, of which very little remains.[16] Whereas Langley was commissioner of the Peace for Kent and Wiltshire between 1377 and 1380, it was John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster who held this role for Hertfordshire, for Lincolnshire Kesteven and elsewhere. These appointments were granted to Langley after the date of the 1369 campaign, which was his first.[17] Amongst his other appointments, Edmund held the office of Steward of England between March and August 1399.[18] When he died in 1402, the manor of Stamford passed to his oldest son, Edward of Langley, 2nd duke of York, who was killed at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, without issue.[19] Duke Edward was succeeded by his nephew, Richard, the three- year-old son of Richard, earl of Cambridge, who was Edmund of Langley’s second son, beheaded for treason against King Henry V just as the 1415 expedition was due to set sail. Young Richard (1411-60) was created 3rd duke of York the following year, and in 1459-60 challenged Henry VI’s right to the throne.[20] Langley’s military campaigns occurred during the period 1369 – 1399, only a few years before his death in 1402. He took part in expeditions to Spain with his brother, Edward, The Black Prince in 1367-1369, and later to France during the 1370s. In 1370, Edward the Black Prince laid siege to Limoges, together with Edmund of Langley and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, thereby meaning that three of the sons of Edward III were present together during this campaign. The town was sacked, allegedly with heavy loss of life of its citizens.[21] Langley’s leadership has been described as undistinguished in comparison to his eldest brother, particularly for apparently contributing to the failure of an expedition to Portugal in 1381.[22] Nevertheless, as the son of a medieval king, he clearly had an important role in military matters. Edmund of Langley’s soldiers and the Poll Taxes of 1377-1381 From the point of view of this study, the period of Langley’s military involvement spanned the time from ten years before to twenty years after the Poll Tax lists were compiled, 1377-1381. It follows that the names of some of the men who offered for service under his command might be found in the Poll Tax records for their towns and villages where he had major landed interests, both before the campaigns in which they fought, and afterwards if they survived. Amongst his other campaigns, Langley raised a retinue to fight under the command of his eldest brother, Edward, for one year in 1369 in Aquitaine, as described in the section on this site on Roger Large, soldier.[23] It has been acknowledged by professional historians that discovering the origins of the military personnel serving as archers “is no easy task as military sources of the period rarely, if ever, provide this information.”[24] The Poll Tax lists for Langley’s other Lincolnshire manor, Grantham, have not survived, and so no comparisons with the men from Stamford are possible. Comparing the names of men on Poll Tax lists from places within the estates of Edmund of Langley with those on the Medieval Soldier database, could become part of a further and much larger study, especially when comparing them with areas in which Langley had no interests.[25] According to the surviving records of the Poll Tax, in 1379-1381, the town of Stamford included 196 taxpayers, made up of 170 males, including 42 male servants, of whom all but 2 were without a surname, and 19 female servants, also recorded without a surname. Names of wives were not included, although widows were since they were taxed as individuals. Many occupations were also recorded. The population of Stamford in the Poll taxes illustrates a growing trend of using the trade of the individual as the surname, although we can never be certain whether it was the individual who followed the craft or whether the trade name had been inherited from an ancestor who had followed the craft. Thus, there are examples in the surnames of the tax lists of the medieval spelling of carpenter, skinner, cooper, mason, tailor, glover, tanner, chaloner ( maker or seller of blankets ), baker, fletcher, barber, goldsmith, litsterer ( dyer ), cooper ( maker of barrels ) and others.[26] The Poll Taxes were levied in 1377, 1379 and 1381, all using slightly different criteria. The tax of 1377 was collected during the last parliament of Edward III, when those of fourteen years of age and above were liable to pay one groat (4d., four old pence). According to Carolyn Fenwick, who transcribed the original poll tax records into 3 volumes, the second Poll Tax in 1379, which has been the source of information about Stamford, was probably granted between 27 April and 27 May that year. This tax was to be levied on all lay men, both single and married, and single women, who were aged 16 years and above and was on a sliding scale related to personal wealth. Married couples were taxed as one unit, a change from the arrangements in 1377. The tax was to be between 4d. to 10 marks (£6 13s. 4d.), payable in two instalments. Genuine paupers were excluded. Parliament decreed that individuals liable for taxation should be taxed only in one place. Accounts were to be kept by treasurers appointed for the purpose and county sheriffs were ordered to assist in the collections.[27] For the tax of 1379, the age was raised to sixteen years. In 1381, a third Poll Tax was levied in which the age of payment was fifteen years and over, with a tax of between one and sixty groats (twenty shillings) But the majority paid at the one shilling rate and the tax was on individuals as in 1377, with the special arrangements for taxing married couples as had been the case in 1379.[28] However, an additional challenge in the evaluation of the Poll Tax records concerning the male population of Stamford who might potentially be available for military service arises, namely the difficulty of taking into account men who were not liable to taxation, and whose names did not therefore appear in the records. This would apply equally in other towns and villages in England. As noted previously, the Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 taxed men and women, dependents and servants, individually. Excluded were the clergy, the populations of the Palatinates of Chester & Durham, the Tin Miners of Devon & Cornwall (Stannary Men), men of the Royal Mint in London and Canterbury, distressed areas and the Cinque Ports. Mendicants (Orders of Friars) were also exempt.[29] Most of these groups were not relevant to Stamford, but members of the Clergy, including Friars, were. In addition to its six Parishes, the town of Stamford had Friaries of five orders, Augustinian, Dominicans Franciscans, Carmelite and ‘Friars of the Sack’ (also Augustinian), who were originally received in London with the Franciscan order.[30] Since none of these men were eligible for taxation, their names and numbers were not included in the tax records of the town, but we could assume they were not likely to be relevant to military service anyway. We also lack the names of the indigent poor, numbers of whom may have been significant in Stamford, given the work amongst the poor of all the Friaries. It is not possible to consider the entire population of Stamford, therefore, since no complete record of this exists for the late 14thcentury. So, for present purposes, 130 male tax payers were included in the study, for whom both a first name and surname were clearly recorded in the Poll Tax list. Each name was cross-referenced against the Medieval Soldier database, which in its first version as used in this paper, contained around 250,000 service records (some men of course served more than once, so this figure reflects fewer individuals). The database is made up of names found in muster rolls (both for expeditionary and garrison service, for which the majority of evidence comes from the English garrisons in Normandy in the fifteenth century) and names of those taking out letters of protection and appointing attorneys, methods by which those intending to serve sought to protect their interests whilst away from home. For a detailed description of the datasets used for the online database see ‘The Soldier in later Medieval England: The Datasets described.’[31] A connection with Edmund Langley was considered potentially significant in view of his undoubted links with Stamford, and the likelihood that some of the men under his command may have been drawn from the parts of the country where he held manors, and had significant landed interests. This, at least, is the hypothesis under consideration in this study. As for the soldiers themselves, males volunteered for paid service in the armies of the crown. Commissions of array were also used to raise defensive troops within the kingdom, all men between the ages of 16-60 years being eligible as long as they were physically fit and well,[32] BUT the Medieval Soldier database only includes the names of those with paid service, which was most commonly outside the realm. The men who made up the companies of soldiers were formed into ‘mixed retinues’ of men-at-arms and archers, mostly mounted, rather than being on foot. They had been recruited by captains who were in a contractual relationship with the Crown, and drawn from across the whole of England and Wales.[33] In the Medieval Soldier database, the names of soldiers were recorded as follows: surname, first name, rank, place of service, the captain and commander under whom they served, the year of service and source reference. It should be noted, however, that letters of protection and appointments of attorney generally concern only men of higher status who had something that needed these legal protections. Archers did take out letters of protection, although in smaller numbers.[34] Soldiers from Stamford A discussion about men from Stamford recorded on the Poll Tax lists who may have enlisted for military service now follows. (There is always some danger in assuming that the individuals in the two sources are the same individual but this study assumes that the name matches are close enough for some confidence in this case.) The men have been assigned into one of two Groups: Group 1 The first group of Stamford men includes 9 individuals from the tax-paying population of the town whose names were found both in the Poll Tax lists of 1379 and on one single occasion in the Medieval Soldier database. They are shown in the Table, where the men are listed in the chronological order in which they served. Group 1: Men of Stamford, Lincolnshire, from the 1379 Poll Tax, against the Medieval Soldier database. Listed in order of the year of action from 1371 – 1400. § a ‘ dyker ’ was a man who dug ditches §§ a ‘ chaloner ’ was a maker or seller of blankets. The word also appears as a surname (Robert Chaloner). The men paid tax as shown: two of them paid 4d, six paid 6d. and the last, paid 2s. This is a very small group of taxpayers from which to draw any useful conclusions about the tax paid and the rank assigned, but there is no obvious connection between the tax recorded and the subsequent military rank. Thus, the man at arms paid 6d. whereas the archers paid 4d or 6d and in one case, 2s. Single examples of names are considered highly significant in the search for men who offered for military service from the Stamford area of Lincolnshire, and they may serve as useful examples should a more extensive study ever be conducted around this theme. These cases are exactly comparable to that of the archer, Simon Large, who paid 4d tax in 1379 at the ‘villa de’ Groby, Leicestershire, and whose name was found only once in the entire Poll Tax records for England, and on one occasion in the Medieval Soldier database.[35] Large fought under the captaincy of Sir Michael de la Pole, later 1st earl of Suffolk, on the campaign commanded by Thomas Woodstock (1355-1397), earl of Buckingham and later 1st duke of Gloucester, who was Langley’s younger brother. As can be seen from the table, 6 of the Stamford men were archers, 1 was a man-at-arms, and in the remaining 2 cases, the rank was not recorded, although archers were enlisted in the greatest numbers so we could perhaps assume that is how they served. Particular attention is drawn to the case of Thomas de Walyngton , who served under Langley and John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, in a Naval Expedition in 1375. A comment about the surname appears below. This endeavour was in fulfilment of Edmund’s appointment, with de Montfort, as joint king’s lieutenants in Brittany. Their force embarked from Southampton in early 1375, with plans to attack the French fleet before St. Sauveur-le- Vicomte, in the Cotentin in Normandy. Unfavourable winds forced them to disembark near St. Mathieu, where they captured the town, before marching to St. Pol de Léon, which they successfully stormed. Further sieges took place before a truce was agreed at Bruges in June 1375. Edmund then returned home with the English fleet.[36] This brief summary of events supplements the evidence that Thomas de Walyngton served under Edmund of Langley on the expedition of 1375, and that he came from Stamford, where Edmund was lord of the manor. Robert Prat , merchant, served under the retinue captain, Sir Ralph de Ferrariis, Keeping the Sea in 1371-1372. William Cony paid 6d. tax, and one example of the name is recorded in the database, showing service as an archer under Sir John Darundell and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in the Naval Expedition of 1378. This is the same campaign, captain, commander and year as that in which John Large, archer, fought.[37] John Bytham , tailor, enlisted as a man-at-arms under the command of Richard Fitzalan [4th earl of] Arundel (1346-97). As Admiral of England, Fitzalan, with Thomas de Mowbray, defeated a combined fleet of Spanish, French and Flemish ships off the coast near Margate in March 1387, the circumstances and date implying that Bytham took part in this naval battle.[38] William de Salteby, described in the Poll tax as a dyker ( ditcher ), served as an archer under Thomas de Mowbray, 1st duke of Norfolk and earl of Nottingham, in 1389-1390 in the Standing Force in Scotland (East March). He could have had more than one role during his period of military service. As a dyker or ditcher, he could have had an important additional role, because the English troops often dug ditches in the field of battle to unseat mounted enemy troops and cause foot soldiers to stumble and fall during their advance. This is exactly what would be expected of men with useful trades to offer their captains, as has been the case in battles and wars before and since. Mowbray had distanced himself from the court in 1387-1388, becoming one of the lords’ appellants by accusing a group of the king’s closest advisers of treason. In early 1389, Mowbray was reconciled with the king (Richard II), and became warden of the east march towards Scotland, a post which included the custody of the border castles of Berwick and Roxburgh. In addition, he was awarded £12,000 a year, agreeing to recruit 400 men-at-arms and 800 archers to serve with him for the months of June and July 1389.[39] It is virtually certain that William de Salteby was one of Mowbray’s archers during in this campaign. No definite connection has been found between Langley and Mowbray other than the evidence that Mowbray had fought alongside Admiral Fitzalan in the naval battle of 1387, and that he had royal apartments at Eltham and at Kings Langley Palaces, the latter having been the place where Edmund of Langley was born.[40] Two other men named Salteby, Robert and John, appear in the same campaign according to the muster roll.[41] These three men may have been related, but only William’s name appears in the Stamford tax lists. The others may have lived nearby, but in places where the Poll Tax lists have not survived. In terms of local geography, Saltby, the village from which the surname was derived, lies 20 miles north west of Stamford, and 9 miles south west of Grantham. Edmund of Langley held the manors of both Stamford and Grantham, although Poll Tax lists have survived only for Stamford. It could be argued that the Salteby men enlisted in one or other of the larger towns in their vicinity where they may have found employment. Richard Gardner served in a Naval Expedition sometime during the reign of Richard II 1377-99, but the muster roll does not identity when exactly. Robert Chaloner , maker or seller of blankets, archer, served under Henry IV (in Scotland in 1400), two years before Langley’s death. John Cupper , an archer fought under the captaincy of Thomas de Radcliffe, commanded by Henry IV, in Scotland in 1400. The names of the two archers, Chaloner and Cupper , both fought in actions led by the king, in the same year and in Scotland. Their names were found at the same TNA reference and on consecutive membranes, suggesting they may have enlisted in the same place, presumably Stamford, Lincolnshire, where Henry’s father, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, had been commissioner of the Peace for Lincolnshire Kesteven. This indicates another network connection of the commanders for other archers enlisting from Stamford. Roger Walker paid 6d. tax and enlisted as an archer under the captaincy of Sir Harry Ferrys for Henry IV’s expedition to Scotland in June 1400. The captain has not been researched in detail, but he may have been a member of the Ferrers family, Lords of Groby, Leicestershire, who used the first name Henry. Duplicate, identical entries were found for Walker in the Muster Roll, and for this reason, his name has been included in Group 1 rather than Group 2. His case also shows that men of Stamford offered for military service in more than one retinue and under more than one captain, which, although not particularly surprising, would be of interest in the general understanding of enlistment practices in the late 14th and early 15th century. These 9 individuals out of the 130 tax-payers of Stamford (6.9%) are men whose names appeared only once on both Poll Tax and Medieval Soldier lists, strongly suggesting they were the individuals, archers and men-at-arms who enlisted from this Lincolnshire town during the period 1371 to 1400. Only one of them served under Langley in person. Group 2 The names of the following 16 men recorded in the Poll Tax lists for Stamford were found on the Medieval Soldier database on more than one occasion. Twelve show a clear-cut connection with Edmund of Langley on one of these entries. They are included here partly because one of the entries in the Medieval Soldier database show service under Langley, and partly because they may have been Stamford residents. However, the complexity of this group of men warrants a description rather than including them in a table. Several attempts to tabulate the group were made, but none was satisfactory or easy to interpret. It is important to note the 12 examples which had a direct connection with Langley and served under his command, the 13th had a slightly more tenuous connection through Langley’s brother, and the last, does not appear to have served under Langley, although he probably came from Stamford. Special attention is drawn to John Wright , carpenter, who took out letters of protection for service in a garrison in Aquitaine in 1369.[42] There are, however, 16 entries of this name in the Medieval Soldier database, including one of a man who served in the Aquitaine Standing Force for a year from 28 February 1369 under Langley (the same garrison, year, date and membrane on which the name of Roger Large appears). In view of the striking similarities, these two entries are almost certain to refer to the same man. This is not to imply that Wright and Large were connected in any way, but to point out that the names of some men appear on the same membrane, apparently by coincidence. On the other hand, in the earlier work, a soldier named Roger Large also served under Edmund of Langley for one year in 1369, and the evidence suggested he could have originated in the Aswardhurn Wapentake of Lincolnshire.1 This district was very close to Kesteven, Lincolnshire, and their Poll Tax lists follow one after the other,[43] It is worth noting that another John Wright served under Michael de la Pole and Langley in the Standing Force in England, as an archer in 1399, for which the term Valettus (yeoman) was commonly used in this period.[44] This second individual served 30 years after his namesake, suggesting they might have been two different men and not one, although this is not inevitable, given that men enlisted up to the age of 60 years.[45] Had the younger man survived and paid tax, he could have re-enlisted by 1399, and this is a plausible explanation, given the connection with Langley in both cases. The alternative explanation is that they were father and son, with the same first name, enlisting 30 years apart. The fact that more than one example of the name of John Wright has been found in the databases, has meant that he has been included in Group 2. Walter Taillour, tailor, paid 6d. tax, and two examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. In the first case he served as archer under Sir William de Windsor (who married Alice de Ferrers, mistress of Edward III), in June 1380. This expedition to France was commanded by Thomas Woodstock, duke of Gloucester.[46] The second entry of a Walter Taillour registers service as an archer in the 1417 expedition to France led by Henry V under Sir John Tiptoft. The apparent rarity of the name suggests that the two entries probably refer to the same individual serving in two campaigns, several years apart, commanded by two sons of kings. However, in view of a measure of doubt, however slight, he has been included in Group 2 rather than Group 1. In any case, Walter Taillour did not serve under Langley. John Taillour , son of Walter Taillour , tailor, paid 4d. tax. A total of 61 examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database but 4 examples concern serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the 1375 Expedition to France mentioned above. These entries may all refer to the same individual from Stamford. [47] Adam Taillour , tailor, paid 6d. tax. 14 examples of the name appear, all in the Muster Roll, but none corresponds to Walter and John Taillour , who may possibly have been his brother and nephew. However, one man named Adam Taillour served as archer under Sir Percy Thomas and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in the 1378 Naval Expedition.[48] This is the same roll as that on which William Cony , archer, was recorded, in the campaign commanded by Gaunt (see Table above). The coincidence may suggest that this Adam Taillour is the Stamford resident, one of a trio of family tailors living in the Parish of St John. He may also have fought as an archer under Hugh Curtays and Sir Stephen le Scrope in 1395-1397, in the Standing Force in Ireland,[49] and even later under John of Lancaster, later duke of Bedford, third surviving son of Henry IV, at Berwick garrison in 1403-1404.[50] Richard Taillour , tailor, paid 6d. tax. There are 27 examples of this name in the Medieval Soldier database. One man with the name served as an archer under Langley after he became duke of York, in 1399 in the Standing Force in England, the troops which Langley raised ostensibly for the defence of Richard II’s kingdom: but in the event, Langley accepted Henry IV’s coup.[51] This is the same company which included the names of J ohn Wright, John Forster and William Cony . The implication is that Stamford was a place where several men enlisted for service for this campaign under the command of Edmund of Langley, who was lord of the manor. John Brice paid 6d. tax. Five examples of the name appear in muster evidence, and six men of this name took out letters of protection. However, in five of the latter cases, the county of origin is recorded; 3 from Norfolk and 2 from Suffolk, thereby excluding them from further consideration, and illustrating another potential challenge in a study of this kind which handles incomplete records. Of the remaining examples of men named John Brice , one was a man-at- arms under Sir William de Neville in the 1374 Naval Expedition.[52] Another was an archer under Richard FitzAlan, earl of Arundel,[53] and another, an archer under Henry V in 1415 in the Agincourt campaign.[54] A final example sees John Brice as archer ( Valettus ) under the captaincy of Ralph Eyton of Ardenne and the command of Henry V, also in the Expedition of 1415.[55] These entries are unlikely all to refer to the same man, and although one of them paid his Poll Tax in Stamford, none served under Langley. John Fletcher , fletcher, paid 6d. tax. 16 examples of this name are recorded in the Muster Roll dataset, and he is another good example of a surname having been adopted from a trade. Two of the names show service as an archer under Langley and Despenser, recorded on consecutive membranes, suggesting duplicate entries.[56] There are 69 examples of the surname Fletcher in the Medieval Soldier database. Fletchers were recruited during the course of the war for obvious reasons, and it is likely that John Fletcher of Stamford was one of them. John Sherman , sherman ( a man who shears ), paid 6d. tax. One of 16 examples of the name served as archer ( Valettus ) under Michael de la Pole and Langley in the 1399 Standing Force in England.[57] This is the same campaign in which William Cony served (see the Table above). John Forster , butcher, paid 6d. tax. One of 53 examples in the Medieval Soldier database shows a man serving as archer under Langley as part of the Standing Force in England in 1399.[58] This is the same campaign, commander, year and roll as the case of John Wright above, suggesting that both men may have enlisted from Stamford. John Broun , described in the Poll Tax as ‘menuw merchant’, paid 3s.4d. tax; he was clearly a wealthy individual who paid more Poll Tax than all his fellow townsfolk, (except Johannes de la Panetre, Esquire, of the Parish of St Andrew, Stamford, who paid 20s.0d. tax). In view of the uncertainty about this trade, The National Archives was consulted. The original 1379 Poll Tax record for Stamford, Lincolnshire was examined (E179/135/76/1 c.1), and the transcription was exactly as suggested by Carolyn Fenwick. In Anglo-Norman French ‘menuw’ means ‘middling’ or ‘intermediate’. It can also mean “minor” or “small.” It follows that a menuw(e) Merchant is one who dealt in small things, such as a Haberdasher.[59] Furthermore, the 1379 Poll Tax list for Stamford included the names of a total of 6 “menuw merchants,including John Broun . This suggests a town which was active in the trade, possibly acting as a centre for outlying villages which were too small to maintain a group of tradesmen of this type. Ninety-three examples of the name John Broun occurred, and one of them served as a man-at-arms under Langley and John of Brittany with Edward Despenser as captain, in the 1375 Expedition to France.[60] A John Broun also served as an archer under Langley in 1375.[61] John Sharp , servant of John Broun , merchant, paid 4d. tax. Four examples of the name occurred in the Medieval Soldier database, serving as archer under Langley, John duke of Brittany and Lord Despenser, in the 1375 Expedition to France.[62] A second entry identical to the first, suggests a duplicate. Two further identical entries of John Sharp also appear under the same captain and commander, in the same Expedition and year.[63] These four entries are probably the same individual, despite the relative frequency of the name, since the entry of Sharp is in the same campaign and roll as his master as noted in the Poll Tax, John Broun . This may be more than coincidence, suggesting master and servant both enlisted, arguably at the same time, in which case, the servant continued his duties in the field, both of them under the command of Edmund of Langley. The presence in battle of a master with his servant probably means that Broun was the man-at-arms, clad in plate armour. He would have needed help to put on and take off the armour, hence the servant at his side, acting as his Squire. John Broun , the merchant, also had a female servant, called Johanna (surname not given). There is no record of her name anywhere in the entire database, confirming that she did not go to France with her master and his servant, John Sharp , but remained in Stamford. The 1375 Expedition to France was the same venture in which Thomas de Walyngton served, and he definitely came from Stamford. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Broun and his servant, Sharp , also came from Stamford. John Grene paid 4d tax. 101 examples of this name were recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. Despite the caution needed in dealing with such a common name, there was one example of a John Grene serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the Naval Expedition of 1375,[64] and a second example in a later reference.[65] None of the other examples of men with his name saw service under Langley, although a William Grene served under Langley in 1381 for one year on military duties overseas in Northern France.[66] However, in a letter of protection he is described as of Newcastle under Lyme, Staffordshire, about 90 miles north-west of Stamford. No evidence of a family link is likely to be discovered, although the possibility cannot be completely excluded. The 1375 Naval Expedition therefore also included John Grene , suggesting that he, too, came from Stamford, where Thomas de Walyngton also paid tax, and whose name has become a key piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis. John Baker , servant, paid 4d. tax. 122 examples of this name occurred in the Medieval Soldier database, so great care is inevitably required in the interpretation of his entries. However, a man with the name served in the Standing Force in England under de la Pole and Langley, as a Yeoman archer in 1399,[67] a similar entry to that of John Wright , above. John Barbour , barber, paid 6d. tax. A total of 147 examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. One man with the name served as man-at-arms under Langley and Despenser in the Expedition to France of 1375.[68] And so he, too, arguably came from Stamford, with his comrades, Thomas de Walyngton, John Broun, John Sharp and John Grene . John Barbour was the only barber in Stamford paying tax in 1379. Thomas Storme paid 6d. tax in 1379. One example of his name is recorded in the Muster Roll (TNA), in which he served under Sir Thomas Swinburne in 1405 in Bordeaux, although his rank was not given.[69] It is therefore virtually certain that he was the man from Stamford. However, since the original work for this project began, some additional entries have been added to the Garrisons’ database, and the name of Thomas Storme now appears in two Garrisons, both in Normandy, where he served as an archer. The first was at the Garrison of Bayeux under the captaincy of Sir William Breton in 1425.[70] And the second, at the Garrison of Avranches, under Thomas Burgh, in 1429.[71] These two entries are extremely close together, within the same roll, suggesting that the two entries of Thomas Storme referred to the same individual, 4 years apart. For the purposes of assessing the possibility of Stamford men serving in the army, however, these two years, 1425 and 1429, are significantly distant from the year of the 1379 Poll Tax. It follows that it is unlikely that they both refer to the Stamford man serving in 1405. In any case, Edmund of Langley died in 1402, and so Storme could not have served under his command. It is for this reason that Thomas Storme has been assigned to Group 2 rather than Group 1. The extreme rarity of the name suggests that these entries may refer to a father and his son, or another younger male relative with the name. John Chester paid 6d. tax in Stamford in 1379. He was a Chaloner ( a maker or seller of blankets ), and was, according to the Agincourt Roll (a late sixteenth century roll of those at the battle, deriving it seems from a lost roll of the period), a man-at-arms under the captaincy of Sir John Gray and the command of Henry V on the 1415 campaign. On this roll his name was entered as John de Chester, implying a place of origin, although perhaps several generations before.[72] His name also appears on two occasions as an Archer at the Garrison of Vernon, Normandy, both under the captaincy of John Burgh, in 1423,[73] and 1424.[74]These two names were both entered without the “de,” as was also the case in the Stamford Poll Tax list. As we saw in the case of Thomas Storme above, these two references are extremely close together on the same roll, suggesting that they, too, refer to the same individual named John Chester. And the comments made about Storme apply equally to John Chester. Perhaps an earlier member of the Chester family came from the town of Chester. Of the 16 men, 11 (68.8%) discussed here were directly under Langley’s command, and may all have come from his manor of Stamford, since their names were also included in the Poll Tax list for the town. In his detailed account of the history of Stamford, the eighteenth century antiquarian, Francis Peck (1692-1743), has provided valuable additional information on some of the residents of the town at about the time of the Poll Taxes. For example, in July 1377, the year in which Richard II held a council of war in Stamford, ‘Thomas de Wadingtoun of Staunford, gave to John Broun of Staunford, W. de Melton parson the church of S. Paul at Staunford, & to John Bonde of the same, one message situate in the parish of S. Mary at the bridge, with one curtilage adjacent (an area of land attached to a house and enclosed)…’ [75] The name John Broun, or Brown in its modern spelling, occurs only once in the entire 1379 Poll Tax list for Stamford, and a review of all the names of those who paid tax in Stamford that year, shows that only Thomas de Walyngton (as his name was transcribed in the published version), could possibly have been the man, de Wadingtoun. No other names are similar in any way, and so it is proposed that Thomas de Walyngton/ Wadingtoun and John Broun, merchant, are the men included in Peck’s account. In 1379, Thomas de Walyngton/Wadingtoun (Group 1), together with John Broun and his servant, John Sharp (Group 2), all lived in the parish of St. Paul, Stamford, and enjoyed a special social status within the community. Group 1 includes those men who enlisted, and Group 2, those who may well have enlisted by virtue of the connection of one of their names in the Medieval Soldier database with Edmund of Langley. The name of John Brown/Broun was also recorded as ‘Alderman of Stanford this 8. & 9. R[ichard] II (1385/6), noting that Edmund Langley E. of Cambridge [lord of Stanford] for his service in the Scotch wars, & many other great services, having highly merited, was advanced to the dignity & title of duke of York (the parliament then sitting) his charter bearing date 6. Aug. 9 R[ichard] II. Whereby he also had 100 l. per annum out of the customs of wools, skins, & pelts in Kingston super Hull, as also 500l. per annum out of the port of London, until a £1000 yearly, in lands & rents, could be settled upon him’.[76] This close association between Langley and the town and citizens of Stamford is worth emphasising, since it makes it all the more likely that he would have enlisted men from the town to serve in his retinues. It is also worth noting that William Styandeby, merchant, who paid 6s.8d. tax in 1379, was named with Edward Styandeby, as Aldermen of Stamford in 45 Edward III (1371/23). ‘They were perhaps brothers and successively aldermen in this town.’ [77] Neither of their names appears in the Medieval Soldier database. Were they perhaps too old to enlist or excluded from military service on the basis of their civic duties, or some other reason? Two further names are also included in this study: John Tidde of Stamford, paid 4d tax in 1379. No examples of the name are found anywhere in the Medieval Soldier database. However, a single example of the name Reginald Tidde occurs, serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the 1375 Naval Expedition.[78] This is the same roll on which the names of John Broun and his servant, John Sharp, were recorded, suggesting a possible connection and a common place of origin. In recent surname mapping projects, the equivalent modern name, Tidd, was most common in Norfolk, to the south east of Lincolnshire, and Tideswell occurred in Staffordshire and adjacent Nottinghamshire, a county which borders on Lincolnshire to the west.[79] In view of the extreme rarity of this medieval surname and the service connection, it may be that Reginald Tidde was killed in action, and hence did not appear in the Poll Tax lists, and that John was his father, son, brother or cousin, since the evidence suggests that Stamford was their home town. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the possibility that the older Tidde died of natural causes between 1375 and 1379. In addition, the Medieval Soldier database includes one man for whom Stamford is actually recorded as his place of origin, and so is of particular interest in the study: this was John Ady who was intending to serve under Michael de la Pole from June 1385 in Scotland.[80] This confirms that Stamford men undoubtedly did enlist for military service, and under other captains and commanders. De la Pole and Langley led a Standing Force in England in 1399 in which 4 other men included in this study, John Wright, John Sherman, John Forster and John Baker, all served, showing a close connection between these two military leaders. However, a note of caution needs to be added here, because Ady’s name does not appear in the Poll Tax lists for Stamford. Did he perhaps live in a village near Stamford during the period 1377-1381, rather than in the town itself, but went to Stamford to ‘enlist?’ The information known about him from the two sources at least bears this interpretation. He could not be included in Group 1, because Stamford was not given as the place in which he paid tax. The databases also include names of men from Lincolnshire who enlisted under other captains, and where their origins have been recorded: Lincoln, Louth, Gainsborough, Grantham, Spalding, Wrangle, Dunsby and Rippingale, adjacent villages in Lincolnshire, approximately 12 miles north east of Stamford. The number of men known to have enlisted from this part of Lincolnshire appears relatively small, but even for men-at-arms who secured letters of protection, only 12 were from Lincolnshire. On the other hand, of the 4493 names of men-at-arms entered on this database, only 455 (10.1%) include the county and/or place of origin, including London, the Isle of Wight and Wales. By far the majority of the places listed are in southern and midland counties of England, and so the apparent scarcity of volunteers from Lincolnshire is not completely unexpected. Conclusion Stamford, Lincolnshire was one of relatively few manors held by Edmund of Langley by the date of the Poll Taxes, particularly in comparison with his siblings. This study shows that of the 27 of its male inhabitants, 9 from Group 1 who definitely enlisted, 11 of the 16 from Group 2, and the 2 other examples, Tidde and Ady , may well have enlisted for military service from Stamford under Langley. Two of these men, Thomas de Walyngton (Group 1), and John Wright (Group 2), undoubtedly served under Langley in person, because the Muster Roll confirms this. Six men from Stamford served in the army under other captains, as shown in the Table, since single examples of their names were found in the Medieval Soldier database. Fourteen men with Stamford Poll Tax names have more than one entry in the Databases, including 11 which were linked directly with Langley. The final candidates, John and Reginald Tidde and John Ady , all have connections with either Langley or Stamford, or both. Estimating the numbers of the male population of Stamford who may have enlisted for military service in one campaign or another is difficult and fraught with challenges, since the Poll Tax lists only those who paid tax. The names of men in groups not eligible for taxation, noted above, do not appear in the records, and so cannot be incorporated into any estimate of numbers enlisting at a population level. However, most of them (including clergy and friars) would not have been eligible for military service, unless they volunteered. In addition, the surnames of only 2 of the 42 male servants in the town were recorded, and so the others could not be checked either. John Sharp , servant of John Broun , merchant, is one of the notable exceptions. Taking this into account, the 9 men who enlisted from Stamford out of the list of 130 taxpayers, represents 6.9% of the males who paid tax in 1379. This is a significant percentage especially if it were representative of other places in the country which had close connections with a royal commander or an aristocratic captain. In the unexpected event that all the 27 men (Group 1 = 9, + Group 2 = 16, +2 [Tidde & Ady])) noted above enlisted at the same time, this would represent 20.8 % of the male taxpayers of the town, and which could inevitably have had a huge impact on its trading and commercial activities. Many livelihoods and families would have been put at serious risk. However, all the Stamford men in Group 1 and most of those in Group 2 enlisted between 1371 and 1400, that is, over a time span of almost 30 years. It goes almost without saying that had all the men left home at the same time, the town would have been depleted of its male population and work force. As it was, the enlistments occurred over a period of three decades, and so the proportion of Stamford’s male population in military service at any one time, and the likely impact on the town, would have been reduced. It is not known how many of the men survived the war and returned to live in Stamford, but it is likely that some, or perhaps many of them, did. On the other hand, the losses of great numbers of men from ‘The Pals Battalions’ in The Great War, especially at the start of The Battle of the Somme in July 1916, is worth noting. The ‘Pals’ were formed by groups of men from the same community to provide mutual support, and their losses had exactly this impact on their towns. These men had lived and worked in the same towns, and they were killed in action together on the Western Front, as well. The numbers of visitors to the Somme Battlefields during the summer of 2016, a hundred years after the slaughter provided a grim reminder of the reality of wartime catastrophes of this sort, one consequence of which was that women from the worst affected towns were employed to carry-out the work their men-folk had undertaken before the outbreak of war in 1914. Much the same would probably have occurred in the late fourteenth century in rural towns such as Stamford: how could it have been otherwise? Furthermore, the devastation wreaked on Stamford by the Black Death of 1348/9, some 30 years earlier, must inevitably have led to a significant decline in population, because Lincolnshire and East Anglia were amongst the worst affected areas of England, with an estimated mortality rate of at least 30%.[81] The thirty years to the time of the Poll Taxes, an interval of one generation, was scarcely sufficient time to restore the town’s working population before the demands made upon it by the Wars with France. This was particularly the case for Stamford, Lincolnshir e, with its close connections with Edmund of Langley, who would have expected men living within his manors and lands, to enlist. This preliminary study is an example of the potential value of a novel and innovative method of comparing names recorded in the Poll Tax lists and the Medieval Soldier database in attempting to discover the identities of the men who enlisted from one rural English town. Stamford, Lincolnshire, was selected for the study because it was one of the landed estates of Edmund of Langley, later 1st duke of York, for which the Poll Tax records appear intact, making the comparison of names in the two lists, more likely to be useful. During the first study of archers named ‘Large’ it was clear that the presence of network connections of the captain of the retinue and/or his commander, and their landed interests, were crucial. Without these, it would have been difficult to decide which man in a Poll Tax list corresponded with a man with the same name in the Medieval Soldier database. There was no difficulty in the case of Simon Large, archer, where only one example of the name was found in both lists. But for cases where there was more than one example of a name in the Soldiers’ Databases, the network connections of the senior officers proved invaluable in helping to assign the likely origin of the soldier. That, at least, was the hypothesis being tested. There are certain similarities in this study of men from Stamford. Had it been the case that considerable numbers of Stamford men enlisted under Langley, the conclusions would have been much more obvious: the network connections of the captains and commanders are relevant and crucial to discovering the origins of the archers. One of the 5 men in Group 1 of the Stamford Poll Tax list whose commanders were identified, definitely served under Langley, namely Thomas de Walyngton . Although this amounts to 20% of the men in whom only one example of the name was found in both the Poll Tax list and the Medieval Soldier database, such a small number makes it difficult to draw conclusions about enlistment patterns at a population level. Or does it? If the hypothesis could be tested on a larger scale, it might be found that the percentage of men enlisting under Langley from his other manors, was significant, suggesting that the strategy of linking men whose names are found in the Poll Tax, with their captains and commanders in the Medieval Soldier database, is valid. And this would apply not solely to individuals, but to populations as well. Group 2 includes 16 men from the Poll Tax list selected for study. This Group is more complex because more than one entry was found for their names in the Medieval Soldier database, although the presence of duplicate entries complicates the analysis to some extent. They have been included because of convincing connections of one of the entries with Langley, or in 3 cases ( Adam Taillour, Robert Chaloner and John Cupper ), with Langley’s older brother, John of Gaunt. In Taillour’s case, it is worth noting that John of Gaunt held the role of Commissioner of the Peace for Hertfordshire, for Lincolnshire Kesteven and elsewhere, rather than his younger brother, Edmund of Langley. To emphasise and clarify the point further, Chaloner and Cupper, were both under the command of King Henry IV (Gaunt’s oldest son) in Expeditions to Scotland in 1400, no doubt another example of a network connection being applied to another royal prince, whose son later became king. In other words, Gaunt and his family used their own network connections to recruit men for their own retinues in the same way as did Edmund of Langley. Where the number of examples of a Poll Tax name which is also found in the Medieval Soldier database is small, as in the cases of John Sharp, John Fletcher and Richard Taillour , their origins in Stamford may be proposed with a fair degree of confidence. In other examples, where numbers of entries in the databases are high, this conclusion may be less secure, unless, they had convincing evidence of connections with Langley. Undertaking a more extensive study of the origins of men who served under Langley using the Poll Tax lists for other towns and villages, would be of interest, and might well demonstrate that the men who enlisted under his command, did indeed come preferentially from areas where he held manors and estates. This is what would be would be predicted if the hypothesis is correct. The results would need to be compared with Poll Tax names from areas of the country in which he had no interests. If the names and places in the Poll Tax records were to be digitised, then meaningful comparisons with names on the Medieval Soldier database would be feasible on a much bigger scale, and be potentially, of significant interest. In the years since the Soldiers’ Database was created and made available for general as well as specialist use, a great deal has been written by members of the original team and others, to advance our understanding of many aspects of the military affairs of the period.[82] However, there is still potential value in small-scale projects such as this, to test hypotheses about how best to identify individual soldiers, especially from the lower ranks (archers), and also to examine patterns of enlistment from discrete communities such as Stamford, Lincolnshire. In conclusion, it is proposed that the 9 men whose names appear on one single occasion in both the Poll Tax list for Stamford and the Soldiers’ Databases, are one and the same individual, and their origins from Stamford, Lincolnshire, can be confidently assigned. This is an important new finding which has implications for the places of origin of medieval soldiers throughout the length and breadth of England. If the hypothesis proposed in the first study “Using the Poll Tax to identify Medieval Archers?” that enlistment under a commander was likely to occur from places where he had landed interests is valid for populations as well as for individual soldiers, then at least some of the men in Group 2, especially those who took part in the 1375 Naval expedition to France, arguably came from Stamford as well. It follows that connecting men named in a Poll Tax list with a military endeavour under a named commander, may also be an invaluable route to discovering their origins. Populations are made up of many individuals, after all. If this were to be the case, then the conclusions would go some way to satisfying “Ockham’s Razor.” William of Ockham/Occam (1287-1347) was a English Franciscan Friar, philosopher and theologian, who is said to have employed the statement “ Pluralitas non-est ponenda sine necessitate ,”[83] which may be loosely paraphrased as “in a complex argument, the simplest solution is likely to be correct.” It is worth recalling that William died in 1347, the year after The Battle of Crécy, so he was a contemporary of the conflicts between the English and the French during the early stages of The Hundred Years War. It follows that making comparisons of names from the Poll Tax lists and the Soldiers’ database is a fruitful method of discovering not only the identities of individuals, together with their places of origin and their trades, but also of revealing clusters of men from the same town, which the evidence presented here suggests, served in the same retinues, and under the same leaders. This appears to be the case for the campaigns of 1375 and 1399. Finding groups of several men who volunteered together from the same town may be a valuable way of discovering more of the way in which captains and commanders recruited their men. “Ockham’s Razor” also applies to this finding. The two ‘outliers’ Tidde and Ady are a special case, and in future studies, similar examples would need to be dealt with in a slightly different way. Questions remain about the men of Stamford who offered for service in other retinues and under different commanders, although this was not unexpected given comparable patterns of enlistment in later conflicts. This aspect was beyond the scope of this study, although it would also be amenable to testing on a wider scale. Concerns continue about how best to deal with common surnames especially when such names have multiple entries in the Medieval Soldier database. It is hoped that future work based on the results of this study may reveal more of the origins, families and occupations of English archers from the towns and villages of England, who fought in The Hundred Years War. Acknowledgements: I am very grateful to Professors Adrian R. Bell and Anne Curry for their encouragement, helpful advice and support during the work for this study. David M Large. References and Sources [1] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [2] Kesteven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesteven [3] Bertrum Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509. Routledge Library Editions. First Edition, 30 September 1971, Appendix A, p. 243. Courtesy of Amanda Pickering, Assistant Operations Manager, Customer Services, Leeds University Library, Leeds, Yorkshire. [4] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [5] Edward III of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England [6] G. E. Cokayne, with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), Volume XII/2, page 897. [7] Edmund of Langley, 1st duke of York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_of_Langley,_1st_duke_of_York [8] John Drakard, The History of Stamford, in the County of Lincoln: Comprising its Ancient, Progressive, and Modern State, with an Account of St Martin’s, Stamford Baron and Great & Little Wothorp, Northamptonshire. Printed by and for John Drakard,1822. p. 58: Wolffe, ibid. Appendix A, p.243. [9] Francis Peck, Academia tertia Anglicana; or, the Antiquarian Annals of the Town of Stan/mford in Lincoln, Rutland, andNorthampton Shires. 1727, Book XI, p. 37. [10] Francis Blomefield, An Essay towards the Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. 1805. British History On-line. Castle Rising near King’s Lynn, the manor of Hadeston Bainard, Launditch and South Greenhoe hundred, and the manors of Beeston and Mileham, acquired from Richard, earl of Arundel, attained, Volume 2, pp. 406-409. South Greenhoe and Launditch hundreds, Volume 5, pp. 1-3. Volume 9, pp. 42-59. Volume 10, pp. 15-25; Tuck, Anthony, ‘Edmund, first duke of York (1341–1402)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edition, Jan 2008 [ http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16023 ]: Peck, ibid, Liber XIII, p. 5. [11] Charles L. Kingsford, Langley, Edmund de, fist duke of York. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Vol. 32, quoting Rymer’s Fœdera, vii. 49, original edition. [12] Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 895. [13] Edward Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. British History On line: Volume 9. pp. 475-548. On-line; CPR. Richard II, vol. 1, p. 7, 1377. [14] William Page, The Victoria History of the County of Rutland. A. Constable and Co. Ltd. 1869-1934. vol. 1, pp. 16, On-line edition: Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 897. [15] Peck, ibid, Liber XIII, p. 5. [16] Wolffe., ibid, p.243. Courtesy of Amanda Pickering, Assistant Operations Manager, Customer Services, Leeds University Library, Leeds, Yorkshire: Anstey motte and bailey castle, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1009453 quoting D. Renn, Medieval Castles in Hertfordshire, (1971), 13, and Andrews. R T, TEHAS Excavation Report, (1903). TL 43 SW22, Information from NAR (TL 43 SW22). [17] CPR, Edward III, vol. 16, p. 491 & 490 (1377); CPR Richard II, vol. 1, p. 512 (1380). [18] Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 898. [19] Rosemary Horrox, Edward [Edward of Langley, Edward of York], second duke of York. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Read on-line at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/22356 [20] Drakard, ibid, pp. 63-64. [21] Peck, Book XI, p. 65; Siege of Limoges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Limoges [22] Anthony Tuck, Edmund [Edmund of Langley], first duke of York (1341–1402), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004/2008. Read on-line. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/16023 [23] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [24] G. P. Baker, ‘To Agincourt and beyond! The martial affinity of Edward of Langley, second duke of York (c.1373–1415)’, Journal of Medieval History, 43 (201x), 40–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2016.1236500 , p. 47, quoting Anne Curry, The Battle of Agincourt. Sources and Interpretations. Boydell Press, 2000, p. 422. Barring troops raised in the earldom of Chester, duchy of Lancaster and principality of Wales in the for the Agincourt army. [25] Sam Gibbs has already done this to an extent in his thesis: S. Gibbs ((2016) ‘The service patterns and social- economic status of English archers, 1367-1417: the evidence of the muster rolls and poll tax returns’. PhD thesis, University of Reading, available here: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/65943/ [26] For further details on surname derivation, see Reaney, P., H., and Wilson, R., M., A Dictionary of English Surnames. First Published 1958. Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2006. https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-English- Surnames-P-Reaney/dp/041505737X : Sinclair, Alice, An Analysis of the Personal Names in an Extract from the Poll Tax Returns of 1377. The University of Nottingham School of English Studies, Volume 1: 2008-2009. ISSN: 2041- 6776. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/08-09/0809sinclairnamesandidentities.pdf [27] Carolyn C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Introduction to volume 1. [28] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [29] C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Fenwick. [30] The friars of the Sack. British History Online. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp513-514 [31] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/help/datasets-described/ [32] CPR 16 March 1378, Richard II, vol. 1, p. 166. Membrane 31d. Calendar of the patent rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, 1377-1381. Richard II, volume 1. London, HMSO 1891. University of Michigan, USA. [33] Andrew Ayton, A., and Philip Preston, The Battle of Crécy, 1346. Warfare in History, ISSN 1358–779X. Edited by Matthew Bennett, Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, Kent. Boydell & Brewer Limited, PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2005. p. 68. Read on-line, https://web.archive.org/web/20190205171146/http://1.droppdf.com/files/dqXZZ/the-battle-of-crecy- 1346.pdf [34] Bell summarises this in his study of the campaigns of 1387 and 1388: Bell, A. R. War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century. Warfare in history. Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge (2004). [35] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [36] Kingsford, ibid. [37] TNA E101/36/39 m.7d. [38] Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fitzalan,_4th_Earl_of_Arundel#Admiral quoting E. Powell et al, The House of Lords, pp. 400-401. For summary of the campaigns of 1387 and 1388 see Bell, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century. [39] C. Given Wilson, Mowbray, Thomas, first duke of Norfolk, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004. Read on-line at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/19459 [40] Given Wilson, ibid. [41] Information on soldiers has been taken from the AHRC-funded ‘The Soldier in Later Medieval England Online Database’, www.medievalsoldier.org : TNA E101/41/7 m. 2 & 3. [42] TNA C61/82 m.7 [43] C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Volume 2, pp. 28, 29, Lincolnshire. [44] TNA E101/42/12 m.10. [46] TNA E101/39/7 No. 4 m.1. [47] TNA E101/34/3 m.2d & 3d (3 entries), [48] TNA E101/37/28 m.1 and TNA E101/36/39 m.11. [49] TNA E101/41/39 m.1i, 2, 3iii, 5, 6ii, 7 & 8ii. [50] TNA E101/43/26 m.2 & E101/43/26/m.3. [51] TNA E101/42/12 m.5d. [52] TNA E101/33/13 No. 2 m.2. [53] TNA E101/36/32 m.5. [54] TNA E101/45/1 m.9. [55] TNA E101/45/1 m.11. [56] TNA E101/34/3 m.2d & 3d. [57] TNA E101/42/12 m.10d. [58] TNA E101/42/12 m.5. [59] From the online Anglo-Norman Dictionary at http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ the word “menuw” is derived from menu, meneu, menut, mesnu, fem. menuwe, plural. menuz, meneutz, mesnuz, mesnutz. Monu Rot Parl 1 iii 211.21, meaning small, thin, light. Perhaps derived from the Latin, minutus, ‘small’ or ‘petty.’ In other words, a merchant in small goods, or a Haberdasher. I would like to thank Dr Paul Dryburgh of The National Archives, and the project team of The People of 1381 ( www.1381.online ) for advice on this term. [60] TNA E101/34/3 m. 1d, 2d, & 3. [61] TNA E101/35/6 m.1d. [62] TNA E101/34/3 m.3d. [63] TNA E101/35/6 m.1d. [64] TNA E101/34/5 m.3. [65] TNA E101/34/5 m.1d. [66] TNA C76/65 m.10. [67] TNA E101/42/12 m.10d. [68] TNA E101/34/3m.1 & m.2 & TNA E101/34/5 m.3 (duplicate entries); and TNA E101/35/6 m.1d (duplicate entries). [69] TNA E101/44/8 m. 3. [70] BNF, MS. Fr. 25767 no. 118. [71] BNF, MS. Fr. 25767 no. 40. [72] BL Harley 782 f. 80 (Agincourt Roll). [73] Muster Roll (TNA), BNF, MS. Fr. 25767, no. 42. [74] Muster Roll (TNA), BNF, MS. Fr. 25767, no. 88. [75] Peck, Liber XI, p. 66. [76] Peck, Liber XII, pp. 10-11. [77] Peck, Liber XII, p. 66. [78] TNA E/101/34/5 m.3. [79] https://forebears.io › news › british-isles-surname-maps 2012-2019, Created by Luka Cvetinovic: https://named.publicprofiler.org/ Created by Oliver O’Brien, Department of Geography, University College, London, & the Kernel Density Estimation map generation code (KDE), using data from the edited Electoral Roll for the United Kingdom, 2016. [80] TNA C76/64 m.4. [81] Lincs to the Past, https://www.lincstothepast.com/exhibitions/lincs-through-the-ages/plagues-potions-and-pills/ : For additional details and comment on The Black Death, see S. Sharma, A History of Britain, 3000 BC-AD 1603, Published by BBC Worldwide Ltd, 80 Wood Lane, London, W12 0TT, 2001. ISBN 0 563 38497 2. Chapter 5, ‘King Death.’ pp 222-273. [82] For example see: Bell, A. R., Curry, A., King, A. and Simpkin, D. (2013) The soldier in later medieval England. Oxford University Press. [83] Occam’s razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor : William of Ockham, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Sufferings of the Early Quaker Community in Stamford Chris Hunt 2023 Hidden amongst Quarter Sessions Records are cases against the non-conformist religious communities between 1662 and 1689. With the restoration of Charles II, Parliament introduced a number of Bills which when enacted allowed the courts to challenged the rights of religious dissenters. The established Church saw the Quakers as a challenge, not just a threat to their religious primacy, but also due to their refusal to pay tithes and ecclesiastical taxes. Starting with the Quaker Act in 1662 and the Conventicle Act in 1664, there began a period of official persecution in England and Wales. The persecution of Dissenters was relaxed after the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 and 1688, and finally stopped under the Act of Toleration in 1689. Unfortunately, the Stamford Quarter Sessions records from the 17th century which have survived suffer from water damage that make them in most cases unreadable. However, Joseph Besse, published in 1753 a detailed nationwide account, entitled, ‘A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers’. This work has been re-published in recent years, understand the title of the ‘Sufferings of Early Quakers’. Within it are recorded two entries for Stamford. ANNO 1682 In November was a Meeting at a Place called St. Martin’s belonging to the Town of Stamford; to which came an Informer named Hawkins, of Market Deeping, and another Person whom he had hired to assist him. These brought with them some Parish Officers, and without producing any Warrant carried those that were met before a Justice, and made Oath, that William Collington, of Stamford, preaching in that Meeting, when indeed he had not, but the Meeting was held throughout in Silence: However the Justice certified the Mayor of Stamford according to the Information sworn before him, whereupon the Goods of the said William Collington were seized to the value of £20. ANNO 1683 Jane Redsmith, a poor Widow, for a Meeting at her House in Stamford, had all her Goods in Stamford, had all her Goods taken from her to the Value of £10 0s 0d. Taken also from William Collington and Elizabeth Moll, for being at the same Meeting, Goods worth 15s 0d. Are there any other Court Cases? Clearly until the damaged rolls are restored these two entries remain our only court records to the Quakers in Stamford in the 1680s. Chris Hunt (February 2023) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Etton Causewayed Enclosure: its significance within the Welland Valley and broader landscape Michelle Feasey 2023 This paper focuses on the Etton causewayed enclosure and the Maxey Neolithic complex, and widens the review to include the other three causewayed enclosures in the Welland Valley. Predominantly, it examines how these contributed to the broader understanding of the local Neolithic landscape and its implications on the national landscape. Causewayed enclosures arise in the early Neolithic period 4000-3300BC (Oswald, ‘Causewayed Enclosures: Introduction to Heritage Assets’, Historic England p.2), and are contemporary with cursus monuments and long barrows. They are the earliest known examples of open land being enclosed. Causewayed enclosures did vary and appear to have had a number of different functions. However, the key features, which will be detailed in the upcoming discussions, are:· A series of interrupted ditches, with small banks, usually on the outside of the ditches; At least one circuit of ditches, sometimes more; Usually oval or roughly circular; Have one or more formal entrances; Tended to be located in topographically dominant locations, such as hill side or valley ends;Those currently identified tend to be in Southern England, south of the Trent, although there are examples both on the continent, northern England and even Northern Ireland; Appeared over a very short period of 200-300 years. The first widely excavated causewayed enclosure was that at Windmill Hill in Wiltshire, which was excavated in the 1920s/1930s, by Alexander Keiller. His excavations were not fully written up until the 1960s, when Isobel Smith was engaged to collate and analyse his notes, and when she also undertook a small excavation (Creation of Monuments, Oswald, Dyer and Barber, p.22) At that time it was common to assume sites had a singular function, and based on the archaeology Smith concluded it was a ceremonial site. Due to the pottery and animal bones found, Smith determined it was primarily a site for feasting, trading and general gatherings. Other sites were excavated during this period, predominantly in chalk u p lands, such as Knapp Hill and Hambleton Hill. Hambleton Hill in particular did much to expand the understanding of these sites, which were still quite rare. It was the expansion of aerial photography in the post-War period, coupled with developer lead excavation, that expanded the number of causewayed enclosures identified across a wider geographical spread, although still predominantly south of the Trent Aerial photography at certain times of year can highlight crop marks, which occur when crops are affected by the underlying archaeology. This archaeology can affect the rate of growth of crops planted into the soil above them. For example, ditches and pits provide a greater depth of soil than can be found in their immediate surroundings, leading to enhanced growth of the crop planted in this area. Alternatively, buried wall foundations or compacted surfaces can inhibit growth, due to reduced soil depth and fertility. These cause variations in the rate of crop growth, indicated in differing maturity of the crop, which can be observed from above. ( www.historicengland.org.uk , ‘Formation of Crop Marks’). Fig 1: Crop Marks at Maxey. A Matter of Time, 1960, frontispiece During the post-war period, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments commissioned an aerial survey of the flat gravel flood plains of lowland England, producing A Matter of Time in 1960 (Pryor, The Fens, Chapter 4, p 61). A Matter of Time identified sites in broad terms as enclosures, circles, cursus, pit-alignments and ridges, focusing along the Ouse, Trent and Welland Valleys, resulting in the discovery of previously unidentified sites, including the Maxey complex (Fig 1). It was in the exceptionally dry summer of 1976 when Dr Stephen Upex discovered the Etton site through aerial photography (Pryor, Etton 1982-7, p.7) (Fig 2). Fig 2: Etton crop marks, photo by S J Upex, (Pryor, Etton 1982-7 p.7) The Etton and Maxey excavations were triggered by the widespread gravel extraction around Peterborough. Extensive deposits of gravel exist around Peterborough having been deposited by the many rivers including the Nene, Welland and Witham which flow into the Wash.These needed to be extracted to use for the building of the Peterborough ‘New Town’. The excavation at Etton was undertaken over a five-year period from 1982-87, enabling the whole site to be excavated, with the exception of a small section which runs under the Maxey Cut (a part of the Welland River which has been straightened). The enclosure is oval shaped and approx. 197m by 145m, forming a single ring of ditches (Fig. 9). The high-water table in the area, meant that the early excavations revealed considerable amounts of organic matter, which on other sites would have decayed. Therefore, as well as the pottery, stone tools and animal bones typically found in the ditch ends, string, birch bark (used as mats), and some 5,000 pieces of worked wood were found ( www.Peterborougharchaeology.org : ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic landscape’). In one pit a complete quern was found, with leaves and twigs packed round it, showing that it had been carefully and purposefully placed (Pryor: Etton, 1982-87, p.23). The extensive and well-preserved wood resulted in more accurate dating of deposits through radiocarbon dating. The site was within a meander of the River Welland, and would have regularly flooded, a factor which must have been known to those building it (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.21) The organic matter revealed a substantial timber gateway at the north entrance, together with evidence of a ‘fence’ or other dividing structure down the west side of an area to the south and east of gateway F of the causewayed enclosure (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.100). It is possible this dividing structure served as a divide between the seasonal camp and the ceremonial heart of the enclosure, or potentially between the commercial/market/feasting part and the area used for excarnation or other religious functions. As it was possible to dig the inside of the enclosure, it confirmed that enclosures more generally were not used for permanent habitation, although there may have been some seasonal occupation, with some possible structures as well as screens. One entrance seems to have a ‘guardhouse’ attached (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.102), although due to the ditch on the outside it would be difficult to defend, therefore, this may have been accommodation for a ‘caretaker’ or some form of religious guardian. Also revealed were many small pits, however, whilst some contained high status items, flint and animal bones, many were very small, with little to determine their purpose. Human bones were found in the outer ditches, which may have previously been excarnated, a method of disposing of bodies where they are left to be picked clean by birds and other animals, but the site does not appear to have been a primary burial site (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.353). It was soon evident from the excavation of the ditches that soon after they were first dug, and the first items placed in, they were then filled in, before subsequent excavation down to the level of the first deposits, new deposits were made, and then again filled in, on a cyclical basis (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.67). The Etton site appears to have been used intensively for a period of about 100-200 years in the second quarter of the fourth millennium BC, thereafter less frequently, with renewed activity in a limited area when the cursus monument was constructed (F Pryor: Etton 1982- 1987, p.353). As referenced above, the ditches were infilled and then reopened on a cyclical basis, with the deposits becoming smaller but more extensive with each level. One potential explanation for these ditches is that each one belongs to a particular family; as they aged, the families grew from the original ‘nuclear’ family to include cousins etc - hence, more offerings, and smaller, as there was less room (Pryor, The Fens, Chapter 4, p.98). Over a five-year dig of this extensive site, so much was found, as detailed in the 429-page report. However, the discussion above has focused on the finds and observations that are most appropriate and insightful in helping to expand our knowledge of these monuments and our understanding of the other sites in the Welland Valley. Fig 3: Maxey landscape, based on crop marks; Pryor, The London Magazine Etton is unique from the other three sites, in that it seems to be part of a much larger ceremonial site, which includes cursuses at both Etton and Maxey, together with the Maxey Henge (see Fig 3 above). The cursuses are of a similar date to the causewayed enclosures, being long narrow corridors bounded on two sides by a ditch and bank. Their usage is unclear, but would seem to be some form of ceremonial pathway. There are two on this site: one to the southeast of the Etton causewayed enclosure, and ending within the monument; the other to the west running parallel to this from the Maxey cut up to the current River Wellend. The henge was dug multiple times in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and cuts across the Maxey cursus. At 126 metres in diameter its size would indicate that this was larger than the more famous one at Stonehenge. It is unusual as it had a central round mount and an oval barrow in its entrance (Historic England research records, Monument No.1030942). Whilst the Henge would have been built some years after the causewayed enclosure, it would seem to indicate that this was a site of particular importance to the people in the area. Although very little has been dug outside the Maxey/Etton complex there is aerial photographic evidence of cursuses at both Barnack and Bainton, also within the Welland Valley, and so cannot be excluded as part of this ritual landscape. Maxey church, which is located in the North-West corner of the complex, sits on a small rise, which could be the remnants of a barrow, possibly a Neolithic long barrow. It is, though, how Maxey and Etton fit into and help explain the wider Welland Valley at this time that is of particular interest in this case. The Etton causewayed enclosure is one of five that are within a 5 km area: Uffington, Barholm, Northborough, Etton and Upton. Whilst Upton is within this radius, this paper’s specific focus is on the Welland Valley, and Upton, together with another enclosure at Southwick, would seem to be part of the Nene Valley area, hence they will not be included in this study. The Etton causewayed enclosure is of similar size and shape to the others in the Welland Valley, so it would seem reasonable to assume that there was communication between the different communities that built the enclosures, and if they were liaising with each other in regard to the size and shape, it would not be unreasonable to assume at least some similarities in their usage. As the others have not been dug (with exception of the small dig at Northborough), the Etton excavation provides invaluable help in understanding the other three. Fig 4: Map showing location of the four causewayed enclosures (blue ovals) As previously referenced above there are three other sites within the Welland Valley, as shown on the map above (Fig 4). Fig 5: View across the enclosure at Uffington towards the Welland Uffington is probably the most impressive in its location, sitting on a rise above the River Welland. With clear views across the valley, to what is now Burghley House, it would also have been visible from the other side of the valley. It is not situated at the very top of the hill, which suggests its location was chosen to be visible from the river and across the valley which would not be possible if it was at the peak of the hill. Identified through crop marks, though it must be noted the crop marks are incomplete, its dimensions are most likely around 130m by 150m with two ditches approximately 8m apart. ( www.Heritagegateway.org.uk : ‘Uffington Causewayed Enclosure’). Fig 6: Barholm, across the enclosure towards Uffington and the Welland The Barholm site sits on a slight rise above the River Welland, most likely just above the Neolithic flood plain. It is similar in size and shape to that at Uffington (Fig 9). Based on aerial photography the ditches have a ‘sausage-link’ shape, which may indicate larger ditches having been amalgamated over time ( www.heritagegateway.org.uk : Lincolnshire HER, Barholm and Stowe). Excavations of the area in the late 1960s to the southwest of the Causewayed enclosure revealed evidence of Late Neolithic settlement (EAA 61, The Fenland Project, No.7: Excavations in Peterborough and the Lower Welland Valley 1960-69). Fig 7: Northborough enclosure, looking West towards Village, and Maxey beyoind The Northborough site is the closest site to the Fen edge, with the Welland running to the north and east, on a flat site, only marginally elevated above the river. As with Uffington and Barholm, the Northborough site has two circuits of ditches and is approximately 170m by 130m (Fig 9) but with the addition of an outer enclosure of ditches measuring 230m by 180m (Fig 8) (Wessex Archaeology, Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, p.1). This is the only one of the four sites discussed to have two rings of ditches and to have been partly excavated (completed as part of the Channel 4 Time Team series released 2004). Due to time constraints, the Northborough dig excavated only a small number of pits. However, these did reveal one very interesting item: a pot shard. Although it is not unusual to find pots in these pits, it was evident this pot had only been partially fired, so would have not been useable for cooking wear ( Time Team , 2004). Therefore, this pot seems to have been specifically made to be placed in the pit, which could reveal an element of pre-planning and a pragmatic approach to the items to be deposited, i.e. whilst respecting the ancestors or Gods to whom the offerings were made, there is little point wasting time finishing something to a high standard to put it in the pit. Phosphate analysis was higher in the eastern half of the enclosure, which could indicate stock-related activities (Wessex Archaeology, Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure , p.16). This could represent a number of different uses for the site; as seasonal cattle market, a place to bring in the livestock for some form of seasonal health check, or marking, or for some ceremonial purpose. Again, solidifying the argument that these enclosures had a multifunctional and significantly varied purpose. Fig 8: Artistic impression of Northborough, Channel 4, Time Team (Victor Ambrus) Three of the sites, at Northborough, Etton and Barholm, would have experienced seasonal flooding due to their low-lying locations. It would, therefore be unlikely there would have been any permanent settlement within the sites, and the lack of any evidence found at both Etton and Northborough would further reinforce the view that these sites were used seasonally and not for any permanent settlement. It is worth noting that two excavated causewayed enclosures at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey are within70m of each other, and of similar size, shape and timescale. However, one is oriented to look over Kent, the other over the sea. Finds within these sites seem to indicate differing methods of usage. Whilst there are still deposits within the ditches, they vary in type, and one site seems to have hosted grand ceremonial activity, with the other, having a quieter more private existence (Allen, Leivers, Ellis; Prehistoric Society, Causewayed enclosures and later Neolithic Farming). So, whilst there are numerous similarities between the four causewayed enclosures in the Welland Valley, it is entirely likely, that the different groups had some individuality in the way that they were used. Fig 9: Plans of the Causewayed enclosures; The Creation of Monuments p.110. What do these four monuments tell us, then, about settlement in the Neolithic landscape of the Welland Valley? The Early Neolithic period has left very little evidence of settlement, yet, settlements have been located at both Maxey and Barholm: two at Maxey, one about 500m north of the causewayed enclosure and the other, Etton Woodgate, about 80m west ( www.Peterborougharchaeology.org : ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic landscape’). At Barholm the settlement is about 1km to the east of the enclosure. Here, excavations took place in 1965, revealing five periods of occupation: late Neolithic, early Iron Age, Romano- British, Medieval and late Medieval/early Modern. The discovery of post-holes, pits and ‘working-hollows’, together with Grooved ware and Mortlake pottery, clearly showed occupation during the late Neolithic period, so probably during the later period of the causewayed enclosure. However, the site was not fully investigated due to the open drain to the east, the inhibiting presence of a large amount of topsoil dumped by the quarry to the north and significant time constraints. Thus, early occupation cannot be discounted (Simpson: The Excavation of a Late Neolithic Settlement at Barholm, Lincolnshire). Using Tim Darvill’s suggested settlement distribution model, the causewayed enclosures would be set within a community of farms spread along the Welland Valley providing a focal point for those dispersed farms, with Northborough being the last one before the sparsely populated Fens. These theories have grown from geographical theories such as the Thiessen Polygons (also known as Voronoi diagrams), the theories of primarily urban population distribution by Christaller, and latterly in the 1960s the advent of Quantitative Geography. These were then applied to prehistoric populations and expanded upon by both Cunliffe and Tim Darvill. Christaller claimed that cities, towns and villages developed within a hierarchical network where each location would fit a certain functional niche that defined its size and character (Ducke & Kroefges; Identifying Settlement patterns and territories , 2007, p.2). The Voronoi diagram uses classic point pattern analysis, however, this is quite a rigid method and has many limitations. The difficulty with many of these distribution models is the assumption that there is a hierarchy of settlements, which in the early period of the Neolithic seems unlikely, with settlements being very small and generally self-sufficient, with the exception of limited trading in pottery and other consumables. The existence of these monuments, though, does suggest some form of hierarchy within the population, which would organise, communicate and manage the sites. Even if the enclosures were built over a period of time, their size and the effort involved in construction with basic tools, would suggest there was a reasonable population available to carry out the work, and as mentioned previously some level of management and organisation. The sites at both Etton and Northborough seem to have provided evidence to support the theory that the enclosures were a multifunctional hub for a dispersed farming community, probably providing a central ‘home’ for the fledgling tribal system. However, these monuments were built in the early part of the Neolithic period as the population transitioned from the Mesolithic nomadic hunter gathers to the settled farmers of the Bronze Age. It is entirely possible, therefore, that there was still some nomadic activity, possibly after the harvest. This in some ways underlines the importance of these monuments to the communities that used them, providing a spiritual and ancestral base. If this is then extrapolated along the Welland Valley, it would indicate a relatively well populated area, with each causewayed enclosure supporting the community around it, with the river very much providing a link between these communities as a possible method of transport and a focal point. The Welland Valley is a fertile agricultural region now, and this is likely to have been the case in the Neolithic period, with the wooded ‘uplands’ (if one can call the small hills in the region uplands) and the fertile river valley, with the close proximity to the Fens with their fish and wildfowl for food, as well as reeds for thatch and fodder and peat for fuel. Unsurprisingly, then, the area was described as well populated in the Iron Age/Roman period, as evidenced by the sheer quantity of Roman archaeology found in the area, and the intervening Bronze and Iron Age period also shows plenty of occupation, with both settlements and barrows. Yet can these conclusions be expanded and extrapolated to the wider Midlands and Southern England region? Most probably. Previously, it was believed that in the prehistoric period the main areas of population were in the uplands, where the absence of ploughing has left hillforts, barrows and evidence of settlement. However, work done to produce A Matter of Time , and subsequent aerial photography has revealed considerable crop marks in the river valleys and the lowlands, which would suggest the reverse is indeed the case, and that these areas were the main areas of population. New crop marks are being revealed each year, which can only increase the number of sites identified or at least identifiable. The river valleys then, as now, were ideal sites for occupation, with fertile soils, availability of water for domestic use and fishing, together with the woodlands in the upper reaches of the valleys. Our Mesolithic ancestors will have travelled extensively throughout England, and these sites may already have been locations for summer camps, or sites to track the migrating herds. There is growing support for the idea that such enclosures were built at places which were already important features of the humanly perceived landscape, as long- term patterns of cyclical and routine behaviour produced landscapes which had become socially inscribed with meaning long before the construction of the first Neolithic monuments (P Topping (ed.) Landscapes, The Neolithic, and Kent 1997 ref: Bradley 1993, Tilley 1994). Therefore, with the advance of agriculture to a more settled existence, the valleys would have made an attractive place to settle, with sites close by already of importance to the population. In conclusion, the Etton causewayed enclosure is incredibly important to the understanding of this type of monument due to the extent of excavation possible, together with the high level of preservation of organic matter. This enabled analysis of the use of the majority of the site as a whole, together with more accurate dating of activity. Within its setting of the Welland Valley, with the three other causewayed enclosures at Uffington, Barholm and Northborough, it provides a complex that give us the opportunity to interpret these monuments in the wider context of the landscape, and how this can impact our understanding of the territorial settlement patterns of the time. The evidence of some settlement at both Maxey and Barholm lend support to the theories that these enclosures formed a central hub for the dispersed farming and semi-nomadic populations at the time. The number of these enclosures in such a small area, together with the physical effort required to build them and the level of organisation needed, suggests that the population in the region would have been relatively high and have some degree of organisation and a possible fledgling tribal system. With improved photographic techniques, together with Lidar and other ground penetrating radar analysis, more sites should be identified. In some areas of Southern England, such as large parts of Kent, virtually no causewayed enclosures have yet been found. As more sites, and hopefully clusters such as in the Welland Valley, are identified and excavated, our understanding of both these monuments, the people that used them, and the communities they supported can only increase. Bibliography Records and Archival Sources Historic England, ‘Research Records: Monument No: 1030942’ (2012), < https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1030942&resourceID=19191 >[accessed 2/12/2022]. Secondary Literature Allen, M., Leivers, M., Ellis, C., Stevens, S., Clelland, S., Bayliss, A., . . . Stevens, C., ‘Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures and Later Prehistoric Farming: Duality, Imposition and the Role of Predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK’, in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (74) (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 235-322. Oswald, A Ed. Flatman,J., Herring, P., McOrmish, D., ‘Causewayed Enclosures: Introduction to Heritage Assets’, Historic England (Swindon, 2018). Barber, M., ‘Landscape, the Neolithic and Kent’ in P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2 (Oxford, 1997), pp. 77-86. Darvill, T., Prehistoric Britain (London, 1987). Ducke, B., and Kroefges, P., ‘From Points to Areas: Constructing Territories from Archaeological Site Patterns Using an Enhanced Xtent Model’ in A. Posluschny, K. Lambers and I. Herzog (eds.), Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (Berlin, 2009). Healy, F., ‘Causewayed enclosures and the Early Neolithic: the chronology and character of monument building and settlement in Kent, Surrey and Sussex in the early to mid-4th millennium cal BC’, in South East Research Framework resource assessment seminar (Cardiff, 2005), pp. 1-29. Oswald, A., Barber, M., and Dyer, C., The Creation of Monuments, Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles (London, 2001). Pryor, F., et. al., Etton: Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982-7 (Liverpool, 1998). Pryor, F., The Fens: Discovering England’s Ancient Depths (London, 2020). Pryor, F., ‘The Ritual Landscapes of Pre-Roman Britain’ in The London Magazine (London, 2022) < https://thelondonmagazine.org/article/the-ritual-landscapes-of-pre- roman- britain >[accessed 28/12/2022]. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, A Matter of Time; an Archaeological Survey(London, 1960). Simpson, W.G., Gurney, D., Neve, J., and Pryor, F., 'The Fenland Project No.7: Excavations in Peterborough and the Lower Welland Valley 1960–69' in East Anglian Archaeology 61 (1993). Wessex Archaeology, ‘Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results’ (Salisbury, 2005). Websites ‘Formation of Crop Marks’, Historic England (2020), < https://historicengland.org.uk/research/methods/airborne-remote-sensing/formation- of-cropmarks/ > [accessed 20/11/2022]. ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic Landscape’, Peterborough Archaeology (unknown), < https://peterborougharchaeology.org/maxey-etton-neolithic-landscape >[accessed 12/11/2022]. ‘Neolithic Causewayed Camp: Barholm and Stowe’, HeritageGateway (unknown), https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MLI30052&resourceID=1006 >[accessed 20/12/2022]. ‘Find a Site’, The Megalithic Portal < https://www.megalithic.co.uk >[accessed 2/12/2022]. ‘Uffington Causewayed Enclosure’, HeritageGateway (unknown), < https://www.heritagegateway. o rg.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=347828&reso urceID=19191 >[accessed 15/12/2022]. Media ‘A Neolithic Cathedral?’, Time Team (Channel 4, 2005), < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nt3-ue5IUA >[accessed 19/12/2022]. A print version can be downloaded HERE This research essay is published with the permission of the author. SDLHS is not responsible for its content. 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 My School-Days in Stamford by EDITH NESBIT [The article below was written by Edith Nesbit and is part of her memoirs entitled My School-Days which was serialised between October 1896 and September 1897 in The Girl’s Own Paper . It has been suggested that the period in question was between the autumn of 1866 and the spring/summer of 1867. Nesbit was most famous for her children’s novel, The Railway Children (1906), and the subsequent award-winning film of the same name. This memoir gives us a picture of a dame school in Stamford from the viewpoint of an eight-year-old schoolgirl, albeit written in her late thirties. And, of course, her opinion that she never ‘wished to see Stamford again’. (Chris Hunt).] I spent a year in the select boarding establishment for young ladies and gentlemen at Stamford, and I venture to think that I should have preferred a penal settlement. Miss Fairfield, whose school it was, was tall and pale and dark, and I thought her as good and beautiful as an angel. I don't know now whether she was really beautiful, but I know she was good. And her mother, dear soul, had a sympathy with small folly in disgrace, which has written her name in gold letters on my heart. But there was another person in the house, whose name I will not put down. She came continually between me and my adored Miss Fairfield. She had a sort of influence over me which made it impossible for me ever to do anything well while she was near me. Miss Fairfield's health compelled her to leave much to Miss ----, and I was, in consequence, as gloomy a cynic as any child of my age in Lincolnshire. My chief troubles were three, my hair, my bands, and my arithmetic. My hair was never tidy, I don't know why. Perhaps it runs in the family for my little daughter's head is just as rough as mine used to be. This got me into continual disgrace. I am sure I tried hard enough to keep it tidy. I brushed it for fruitless hours till my little head was so sore that it hurt me to put my hat on. But it never would look smooth and shiny, like Katie Martin's, nor would it curl prettily like the red locks of Cissy Thomas. It was always a rough, impossible brown mop. I got into a terrible scrape for trying to soften it by an invention of my own. As we all know, Burghley House is by Stamford Town, and in Burghley Park we children took our daily constitutional. We played under the big oaks there, and were bored to extinction, not because we disliked the park, but because we went there every day at the same hour. Now Harry Martin, he wore striped stockings and was always losing his handkerchief and suffered from his hair almost as much as I did. So when I unfolded my plan to him one day in the park, he joyfully agreed to help me. We each gathered a pocketful of acorns, and when we went to wash our hands before dinner, we cut up some of the acorns into little bits, and put them into the doll's bath with some cold water and a little scent that Cissy Thomas gave us, out of a bottle she had bought for twopence at the fair at home. "This," I said, "will be acorn oil, scented acorn oil." "Will it?" said Harry doubtfully. "Yes," I replied, adding confidently, "and there is nothing better for the hair." But we never had a chance of even seeing whether acorns and water would turn to oil, a miracle which I entirely believed in. The dinner-bell rang, and I only had time hastily to conceal the doll's bath at the back of the cupboard where Miss ----- kept her dresses. That was Saturday. Next day we found that Miss ----'s best dress (the blue silk with the Bismarck brown gimp) had slipped from its peg and fallen on to the doll's bath. The dress was ruined, and when Harry Martin and I owned up, as in honour bound. Miss Fairfield was away in London and so we were deprived of dinner, and had a long Psalm to learn. I don't know whether punishment affects the hair, but I thought, next morning at prayers, that Harry's tow-crop looked more like hay than ever. My hands were more compromising to me than anyone would have believed who had ever seen their size, for, in the winter especially, they were never clean. I can see now the little willow-patterned basin of hard cold water, and smell the unpleasant little square of mottled soap with which I was expected to wash them. I don't know how the others managed, but for me the result was always the same. Failure; and when I presented myself at breakfast, trying to hide my red and grubby little paws in my pinafore, Miss ---- used to say: "Show your hands, Daisy, yes, as I thought. Not fit to sit down with young ladies and gentlemen. Breakfast in the schoolroom for Miss Daisy." Then little Miss Daisy would shiveringly betake herself to the cold bare schoolroom, where the fire had but just been kindled. I used to sit cowering over the damp sticks with my white mug, mauve spotted it was I remember, and had a brown crack near the handle. Sometimes I used to pull a twig from the fire, harpoon my bread-and-butter with it, and hold it to the fire: the warm, pale, greasy result I called toast. All this happened when Miss Fairfield was laid up with bronchitis. It was at that time, too, that my battle with compound long division began. Now I was not, I think, a very dull child, and always had an indignant sense that I could do sums well enough if any one would tell me what they meant. But no one did, and day after day the long division sums, hopelessly wrong, disfigured my slate, and were washed off with my tears. Day after day I was sent to bed, my dinner was knocked off, or my breakfast, or my tea. I should literally have starved, I do believe, but for dear Mrs. Fairfield. She kept my little Body going with illicit cakes and plums and the like, and fed my starving little heart with surreptitious kisses and kind words. She would lie in wait for me as I passed down the hall, and in a whisper call me into the store closet. It had a mingled and delicious smell of pickles and tea and oranges and jam, and the one taper Mrs. Fairfield carried only lighted dimly the delightful mystery of its well-filled shelves. Mrs. Fairfield used to give me a great lump of cake or a broad slice of bread and jam, and lock me into the dark cupboard till it was eaten. I never taste black-currant jam now without a strong memory of the dark hole of happiness, where I used to wait, my sticky fingers held well away from my pinafore till Mrs. Fairfield's heavy step and jingling keys came to release me. Then she would sponge my hands and face and send me away clean, replete, and with a better heart for the eternal conflict with long division. I fancy that when Miss Fairfield came downstairs again she changed the field of my arithmetical studies; for during the spring I seem to remember a blessed respite from my troubles. It is true that Miss ---- was away, staying with friends. I was very popular at school that term I remember, for I had learned to make dolls bedsteads out of match-boxes during the holidays, and my eldest sister's Christmas present provided me with magnificent hangings for the same. Imagine a vivid green silk sash, with brilliant butterflies embroidered all over it in coloured silk and gold thread. A long sash, too, from which one could well spare a few inches at a time for upholstery. I acquired many marbles, and much gingerbread, and totally eclipsed Cissy Thomas who had enjoyed the fleeting sunshine of popular favour on the insecure basis of paper dolls. Over my memory of this term no long division cast its hateful shade, and the scolding my dear mother gave me when she saw my sashes' fair proportions docked to a waistband and a hard knot, with two brief and irregular ends, was so gentle that I endured it with fortitude, and considered my ten weeks of popularity cheaply bought. I went back to school in high spirits with a new set of sashes and some magnificent pieces of silk and lace from my mother's lavendered wardrobe. But no one wanted dolls' beds any more; and Cissy Thomas had brought back a herbarium: the others all became botanists, and I, after a faint effort to emulate their successes, fell back on my garden. The seeds I had set in the spring had had a rest during the Easter holidays, and were already sprouting greenly, but alas, I never saw them flower. Long division set in again. Again, day after day, I sat lonely in the schoolroom, now like a furnace and ate my dry bread and milk and water in the depths of disgrace, with the faux commencements and those revolting sums staring at me from my tear-blotted slate. Night after night I cried myself to sleep in my bed, whose coarse home-spun sheets were hotter than blankets. All because I could not get the answers right. Even Miss Fairfield, I fancied, began to look coldly on me, and the other children naturally did not care to associate with one so deficient in arithmetic. One evening as I was sitting as usual sucking the smooth, dark slate pencil, and grieving over my troubles with the heart-broken misery of a child, to whom the present grief looks eternal, I heard a carriage drive up to the door. Our schoolroom was at the back, and I was too much interested in a visitor, especially one who came at that hour and in a carriage, to be able to bear the suspense of that silent schoolroom, so I cautiously opened its door and crept on hands and knees across the passage and looked down through the bannisters. They were opening the door. It was a lady, and Mrs. Fairfield came out of the dining-room to meet her. It was a lady in a black moiré (type of textile) antique dress and Paisley shawl of the then mode. It was a lady whose face I could not see, because her back was to the red sunset light; but at that moment she spoke, and the next I was clinging round the moue skirts with my head buried in the Paisley shawl. The world, all upside down, had suddenly righted itself. I, who had faced it alone, now looked out at it from the secure shelter of this screen. For my mother had come to see me. I did not cry myself to sleep that night, because my head lay on her arm. But even then I could not express how wretched I had been. Only when I heard that my mother was going to the South of France with my sisters, I clung about her neck, and with such insistence implored her not to leave me and not to go without me. I think I must have expressed my trouble without uttering it, for when, after three delicious days of drives and walks, in which I had always a loving hand to hold, my mother left Stamford, and she took me, trembling with joy like a prisoner reprieved. And I have never seen, or wished to see Stamford again. EDITH NESBIT A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Saracen's Head in Stamford By Alan Rogers Thomas Chapelleyn to Richard Wykes and Elizabeth Wykes, bond for £10 endorsed with a condition relating to the building and repair of an inn called le Sarsynneshed, Saracen’s Head in the parish of St Mary at the Bridge Stamford. March 24th 1435. Source. People & Property in Medieval Stamford by Alan Rogers. (838. MB 4/58) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Battle for 51 High Street, Stamford By Richard Asher The story of a Listed Building and the battle to save it in the 1960s A talk given for the Stamford Local History Society on 4th Dec 2025. Photograph - Stamford Library The property pictured was 51 High Street Stamford This photograph was probably taken in the 1930s. In the 1960s, it became a battleground between the modernisers and the conservationists, as equally important locally as the famous battle for the Euston Arch was in London. I particularly want to talk about No. 51. That is because for me this is a personal memory. Although I was not involved in the dispute itself (I was still at school at the time), this building is part of the reason I was born in Stamford, my home town, and the town whose history has come to mean so much to me. So, let me explain. My dad, Fred Asher, was born and brought up in the tiny village of Dunsby, the other side of Bourne. When he was 14, he left school and started to work as an office boy for a local business in Bourne called Longstaff and Lyall Ltd. They were auctioneers and land agents. He eventually became an assistant to Thomas R Lyall, one of the directors. Fred Asher auctioning livestock (photo R Asher) After the war, having been in the army, my dad returned to work for Longstaff and Lyall at Bourne. [i] However, in 1947, Thomas Lyall asked him to run the Stamford office. In 1949, my dad married my mum, and they set up home in Stamford. I was born the following year in Stamford Hospital. Longstaff and Lyall occupied 51 High Street as their Stamford office. The Company had been based there since about 1938. Subsequently, my dad became a qualified Auctioneer and a Partner in the business (see left). So, you see, if my dad had not been sent to the Stamford office at 51 High Street, I may never have been born in Stamford. No. 51 was thought to date back to at least the 1600s and had been at different times, a public house (The Windmill), a school, and a private house. John Daffurn’s book “Stamford Assets” recalls that it was one of the buildings acquired by the Newcombe family in the nineteenth century and recounts two unusual deaths that occurred in the building [ii] . This photograph shows the front of the building just before it was demolished. ( Photographs RCHM ) On the back of the building in the pargetting, you can just about make out the shape of a windmill, and next to it a date “1690”. It is not clear if the two images are connected, but in his book “Stamford Pubs and Breweries” Martin Smith speculates that it could have been one of the larger Inns of the town [iii] . Photograph RCHM I remember the building well from the early nineteen sixties. What was it like inside? Well, the photograph below gives some idea of the main office on the ground floor and, yes, that is me aged about 14 in the centre of the photograph. Photograph - R Asher The place was in poor repair and the facilities limited, just one toilet used by all the office staff, who numbered about 7 or 8 people. There was no hot water, and no central heating, with just very ancient gas fires. The only way to wash the tea pot and mugs was to disconnect the gas pipe to the fire in the general office and reconnect it to a gas ring on which to boil the kettle. The same process was repeated, once the mugs had been washed and dried, to make the tea. Only then could the gas fire be re-connected, until the next time tea was required! I also recall being sent to collect a sheet of hardboard from Scholes’ shop at 3 Ironmonger Street. This sheet was to put over the wooden floor in one of the first-floor offices, as the typists had been complaining that their high-heel shoes were getting caught in the holes in the floorboards! In those days I had no idea what a Listed Building was or what it meant. But subsequently I discovered that the building had been subject to a Building Preservation Order and was a Grade II listed building. Around 1963, the owner of 51 High Street was approached, along with the adjoining owners at 46, 47, 48, 49, & 50 High Street and 4, 5, & 6 Maiden Lane, by the Pearl Assurance Company Limited with a view to the Insurance Company acquiring all of the properties on the High Street between the then Co-op Drapery store (now Weird Fish & Magnet Kitchens) and the National Westminster Bank branch, on the corner of Maiden Lane (now Starbucks). Pearl Assurance were a major player in the insurance industry. They were, like all the large insurance companies of the day, heavily into property development as a way of investing for future returns. They had decided that Stamford was ripe for a development of new shops, and particularly a branch of one of the fast-expanding national supermarket chains. In those days, there was no such thing as “out-of-town shopping” or hypermarkets and a 6,000 sq. ft. “in town” supermarket was considered the right size for a town such as Stamford. It should also be remembered that, in those days, Stamford High Street was still a main road. Rear servicing was an important requirement to prevent serious traffic hold ups on the High Street. Thus, the plan was to build a new Tesco supermarket, and 4 new shop units, with offices above. All the shops would be serviced from an access in Maiden Lane. This plan required the demolition of 47 to 51 High Street and 4 to 6 Maiden Lane. The battle lines were drawn. The situation was quite complex. On the conservation front, in favour of retaining the listed buildings (which were 51 High Street and 5 & 6 Maiden Lane) were the relatively newly formed Stamford Civic Society and some of Stamford Borough councillors. On the other hand, others of the Stamford Borough Council members were all for the modernisation of Stamford. The County Council – in those days the Kesteven County Council was also split. The Ministry of Transport, who had a say because the High Street was part of the A16 Stamford to Boston Trunk Road, wanted the development to go ahead because it would allow them to insist on the building line being set back to permit them to almost double the road width at this narrow part of the High Street. The debate went on for over 3 years as to whether the buildings should be demolished. Site meetings were held between Stamford Borough Council, Kesteven County Council, and the developers. Plans were revised and resubmitted. Eventually, it was agreed that all the buildings on the High Street should be demolished (including 51), but on Maiden Lane only No 4. It was decided that 5 & 6 Maiden Lane should be saved from demolition. Also, the new building erected at No 4 Maiden Lane must incorporate the doorway to the Albert Hall (at No. 46 High Street) which was to be taken down and rebuilt in its new position – at the back of No 4 Maiden Lane, where it remains to this day – where few people know it exists – and usually it is hidden by dustbins. The Department of Transport did not fully get its way either. The building line was to be set back, but only by 3 feet, leaving a slight dogleg in the pavement between the new development and the bank (now Starbucks). But, then, in the 1970s, the High Street became a pedestrian precinct anyway! So, the demolition of 51 High Street got underway in the summer of 1966. But that was not the end of the story. During demolition, what was described by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments as “a painted studwork wall C1600” [iv] was discovered. The photograph shows the wall in situ soon after it was discovered. Photograph RCHM Photograph RCHM Urgent discussions were held, and it was agreed that the wall should be removed for conservation. This photograph (on the left) shows a remarkable painted panel from the wall soon after conservation. The wall is now in the Stamford Museum Store carefully protected by a Perspex screen. The story of its removal and its remarkable journey from Stamford to Lincoln and back to Stamford would provide enough material for another article. Photograph of the wall in the Stamford Museum Store by R Asher Photograph - Richard Asher Also, found “built into the chimney was a limestone panel” [v] . This proved to be the stone in this photograph. The inscription has been translated [vi] as: Ye who enter this house Pray for Blanche wife of Lord Wake Daughter of Henry Earl of Lancaster On whom God have true mercy. It is believed that this was the memorial stone for Lady Blanche Wake, daughter of Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster. She was the great grand-daughter of Henry III. It is thought that she was buried in the Greyfriars Church in Stamford in 1380. How the stone found its way to the High Street is not known, but it could have been used as building material after the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s. The fully restored stone is now on the north wall of St George’s Church where the above photograph was taken. In conclusion, should 51 High Street have been allowed to be demolished? In my view it should not. Although dilapidated, and in need of substantial modernisation, it could have been repaired and conserved. However, the conservation movement, was not as advanced then as it is now. Whilst the property was a Listed Building, there was no conservation area legislation allowing planners to consider individual buildings in the wider street view context. Historic Buildings could only be considered on their own merits, not as a contribution to the street scene. On the plus side, if the building had not been demolished, we would never have been able to see two magnificent medieval artifacts which we have today – the painted wall and the Wake Memorial. Also, within a year or so of its demolition, Stamford was designated the first Conservation Area in the country under the new Civic Amenities Act – I like to think that this designation as the first Conservation Area was spurred on by the response to the demolition of 51 High Street. My boyhood memories of 51 High Street, helped me to appreciate the historic buildings of Stamford even more. [i] The firm name was changed in the 1950s to just Lyall & Co. [ii] “Stamford Assets a catalogue of Newcombe Family Property”, John Daffurn, Eptex 2024. [iii] “ Stamford Pubs and Breweries ” Martin Smith, Spiegl Press 2006 [iv] The Town of Stamford, A Survey by the Royal Commission on Historical Monument s” HMSO, London 1977 [v] ibid [vi] Taken from “ Grey Friars or White Friars? In search of Stamford’s Friaries”, Linda Ball, Chalybate Books, 2021. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back William Shakespeare and Stamford Chris Hunt 2022 Hidden away within William Shakespeare’s King Henry IVth Part 2; a mention is made, almost in passing of Stamford. A seldom performed play which on occasions is shorted by the removal of some of the conversations between minor figures. In Act 3 Scene 2 there is a conversation between Robert Shallow, a Justice of the Peace in Gloucestershire and his colleague Justice Silence, as they wait for the arrival of Sir John Falstaff who is recruiting soldiers for the Royal Army. Their conversation strays into a discussion of Shallow’s youthful indiscretions at Clement’s Inn which is part of the Inns of Chancery. It is within this part of the play that Stamford is mentioned:- Justice Shallow. “Yes, that Sir John, the very same. I saw him beat Scogan on the head at the gates of the Court, when he was just a lad, only this tall. On that same day I happened to have a fight with a man called Sampson Stockfish, a fruit seller, behind Gray’s Inn. Oh Jesus, Jesus. I’ve had some wild times! And now so many of the men I used to know are dead.” Justice Silence. “That will be us one day.” Justice Shallow “You’re right. I know you’re right, that’s for sure. As the Psalms say in the Bible. “death is certain.” Everyone will die. What price are people charging for a good set of young bulls at Stamford Fair?” Justice Silence. “I’m not sure. I wasn’t there.” Justice Shallow. “Death is certain. Is Dooble, that old man from your hometown, still alive?” Justice Silence. “He’s dead. Sir.” Justice Shallow. “Jesus, Jesus, dead! He was such a good archer, and now he’s dead? He had an excellent shot! John of Gaunt loved him, and used to bet money on his incredible aim. Dead! Oh, he would have hit the target even from two hundred and forty yards away! He could shoot straight at the target from two hundred and eighty yards away, maybe even two hundred and ninety, it was quite something to see! How much are they charging for twenty ewes now?” Justice Silence. “That all depends on their quality, but twenty good ewes would be worth about ten pounds.” Justice Shallow. “But old Dooble is dead?” Justice Silence. “Here comes two of Sir John Falstaff’s men. I think.” At this stage of their discussion more characters join them on stage and the conversation changes. In these preceding paragraphs Justice Shallow and Justice Silence seem to be talking about different things and then not listening to what the other has said. So what have we learnt about Stamford? Probably nothing as we have not discovered the price of two young bulls at Stamford Fair. And as to the price of twenty good ewes, was this the cost of sheep at the time of King Henry IV (1399-1413), or was that the price of sheep at the time the play was performed? It has been suggested that the play was written between 1596 and 1599, it was registered at Stationers Hall in August 1600 and published in quarto form by the end of the year. So why did Shakespeare choose Stamford when he could have chosen any other provincial town and also why choose a Lincolnshire market town when the two characters are men from Gloucestershire? Of course we shall never know. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back THE EARLY DAYS OF TRADE UNIONISM IN STAMFORD AND THE LABOUR DISPUTE AT MESSRS BLACKSTONE & CO IN 1890 By Chris Hunt, 2024 Before the birth of the Labour Party, the interests of the working classes were disjointed and badly organised in a world where the machinations imposed by the Poor Law and the threat of the Workhouse were ever present. Of course, the ‘lower class’ was split into various groups, no more so than the differences between skilled and semi-skilled workers. The new Unions in the 1880s and 1890s were set up to protect the interests of skilled workers against semi- and unskilled workers, as well as to improve their members’ pay and conditions. In Stamford the major industrial firm was Messrs Blackstone & Co. (Rutland Ironworks). The move from their cramped site on St Peter’s Street to a more expansive site on Ryhall Road, allied with becoming a limited company in 1889, was the foundation for the next hundred years of progress. At this period in the firm’s history, it almost solely built agricultural and sundry equipment. It was not until 1896, with the employment of the Carter Brothers and the introduction of the lamp start oil engine, that the company diversified away from horse-drawn farming equipment. On Friday May 23rd 1890, Blackstone’s workers met at the Oddfellows Hall on All Saints Street to discuss their grievances. Five years previously, during a period of agricultural depression, the workforce had been offered a choice of a wage cut or having to work an hour longer every day (except Saturdays). The men preferred working the extra five hours a week, thus raising their time at work from fifty-four to fifty-nine hours per week. Unfortunately, the firm later also reduced their wages, in some cases by a shilling and in some cases two shillings in the pound. Prior to the meeting, foremen from the various departments in the Works had met Mr Blackstone to raise their concerns and it had been felt that his reply was to some extent unsatisfactory. This was the reason for a private meeting at which Mr Alfred Clark (Moulder) was appointed to chair the meeting, Mr Arthur Smith (Fitter) as treasurer, and Mr Edwin Johnson (Iron planer and shaper) as secretary. Views were aired and a deputation was elected to meet Mr Blackstone, which they did on the Saturday afternoon. It was made up of Messrs A. Clark (chairman), Mr A. Smith (treasurer), Mr E. Johnson (secretary), G. Hill. R. Ringham and C. Hardy. As a result, a further private meeting of Blackstone workers was held on Tuesday, again at the Oddfellows Hall, when the deputation reported back on their meeting with management. The workers were demanding a reduction in their working week back from fifty-nine to fifty-four hours and an increase in wages back to the previous levels for those who had been employed when the pay cuts had taken place. It seems that Mr Blackstone had agreed to forego the percentage on piece work and to the increase of wages asked for, but refused the reduction of time. The latter part did not go down well with those at the meeting and it was further agreed that the deputation should talk again to management. One thing to the workers advantage was that there seemed to be plenty of orders at the time as it was reported that the works was busy. As a result of these discussions the workers got a pay rise but no reduction in their working week. Unfortunately for Mr Blackstone and the other engineering companies in the town the dispute at Blackstone’s had galvanised the working men of the town. On Saturday June 14th 1890, an open public meeting was held in the Oddfellows Hall, with approximately 120 working men present. Mr A. Clarke presided, supported by Messrs E. Johnson (secretary pro tem), W. Walden (treasurer pro tem), G. Hill, H. Ringham and C. Hardy, together with Mr Broadberry (president) and Mr Swain (vice president) of the Grantham branch of the Amalgamated Engineers, and Mr Hopkinson, the secretary from the Grantham branch of the Tyneside and National Labour Union. The Chairman said he thought that Stamford was the last town in the county not to have some kind of labour association and that it was quite time one was formed. Those present were informed of recent success amongst workers on Tyneside and in Leeds, Doncaster and Grantham. The men at the meeting were also reminded that fifty-four hours per week was now the norm across England. Mr Hopkinson informed the meeting that the contribution to the Tyneside and National Labour Union was 3 1/2d a week, with a 1s entrance fee; that the Union had been established for sixteen months and had 30,000 members; and that there was no sick benefit but there was an accident benefit and a dispute benefit. At this stage the meeting was informed that there might be a labour dispute at any time, especially in Stamford, which brought laughter from those present. Also that it was about time that there was one, which drew cheers from those present. Other benefits included a death benefit of £4 0s 0d at the death of a member and £2 0s 0d at the death of a member’s wife. Those present were told that if they joined the Union they would be helped until they had won their cause. They were reminded that one of the problems in Stamford was that they were disunited and that it was possible that improvements could be made to their working lives without necessarily going on strike. After further discussion, Mr E. Johnson moved that “having heard Messrs Broadberry and Hopkinson, we, the working men of Stamford, resolve to at once form a branch of the Tyneside and National Labour Union.” Mr Ringham of the Rutland Ironworks seconded and the motion was carried unanimously. About one hundred men then joined the branch. The issue of the working week and the reduction of hours had, however, for Mr Blackstone not gone away and clearly further talks took place for, on Monday September 1st 1890 just before their dinner hour, the workers were summoned by the ringing of a bell to a meeting outside the Workshop. They were addressed by Mr Blackstone, chairman of the directors. He thanked them on behalf of the directors and the shareholders of the company for their co-operation during the past year, especially at the busiest of time. Their request for the reduction of an hour a day in the time of labour had received the attention of the shareholders at a special meeting and it had been decided to grant the nine-hour system. This new arrangement would take effect at once. This was met with loud cheers. Thus in future the working hours would be from 6.00am to 5.00pm from Monday to Friday and from 6.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. (Of course, meal reliefs and breaks were unpaid). And so, from that Monday evening the staff went home at 5.00pm instead of 6.00pm. So began the gradual organising of union labour in Stamford. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back LULU and the LUVVERS play the LANSBURY CLUB in STAMFORD on JULY 18th 1964 On the evening of Saturday July 18 th 1964 Lulu and her backing group the Luvvers played the Lansbury Club (later the Newage Club) on Wharf Road in Stamford. Very much described as a Glasgow band fronted by the sixteen-year-old Scottish singer Lulu, they took Stamford by storm. It was one of the largest crowds every witnessed at the Club with fans flocking to the town from miles around. One party of fans even went to the trouble of hiring a bus from Grantham. Hot from the success of the hit single, Shout, Lulu sang a full one-hour set, managing even to stop the dancing. Probably the club was too packed for people to move. She was described as having a sparkling personality, along with a chirpy little voice, and was wearing beige tight-fitting knickerbockers and a similar coloured top. All in all, it was a great night. Especially for Charles (Chas) Thompson, the doorkeeper, when Lulu sang Shout again as a special birthday treat. Lulu without tight-fitting knickerbockers and a similar coloured top Chris Hunt September 2025 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Are you looking for local history books? The Stamford Local History Society may be able to help you find the publication you are looking for. View a list of our books here and contact us today. BOOKS Several books have been published by members and former members of SLHS. Other books are listed here that relate to Stamford. Most are held at Stamford Library, and some are still available from local bookshops, Amazon or other retail outlets, whilst others may be out of print. If you have difficulty in obtaining a copy you require please CONTACT us as we may be able to help. The Harrison & Dunn Story A History and Memoir Michael Lee Book Design ISBN 9781036911416 William Stukeley's Stamford A selection of drawings from Stukeley's Designs of Stamford Antiquitys John F H Smith FSA Spiegal Press Ltd ISBN Courts, Yards and Terraces The Other Face of Stamford Keith Hansell and Philippa Massey Book Printing UK ISBN Stamford Assets A Catalogue of Newcomb Family Property John Daffurn Eptex ISBN 9780993147951 Stukeley and Stamford, Part 2 Tribulations of an Antiquarian Clergyman, 1730-1738 Edited by John F H Smith The Lincoln Record Society ISBN 9781910653104 George Glover (1812-1890): the unfulfilled potential of a Victorian architect The designer of Rock House and Terrace John Daffurn Eptex, 2022 ISBN 9780993147937 Grey Friars or White Friars? In Search of Stamford's Friaries Linda Ball Chalybeate Books ISBN 9781527285927 Stamford Fairs and Markets Origins of the Stamford Mid-Lent Fair Keith Hansell Hansell, 2021 ISBN 9781399911283 Stukeley and Stamford, Part 1 Cakes and Curiosity: the Sociable Antiquarian, 1710-1737 Diana and Michael Honeybone Lincoln Record Society ISBN 9781910653074 Stamford Tenants A history of Rock Terrace and its occupants John Daffurn Eptex, 2020 ISBN 9780993147920 William Cecil's Survey of Stamford A Town in Turmoil Alan Rogers Abramis, 2020 ISBN 9781845497699 Stamford History Tours Christopher Davies Amberley, 2019 ISBN 9781445659305 A-Z of Stamford: Places-People-History Christopher Davies Amberley, 2019 ISBN 9781445685298 Newstead by Stamford Priory A small but important house of Austin canons N J Sheehan Sheehan, 2018 ISBN 9780957503854 Stamford in 50 Buildings Celebrating 50 years of a conservation town Christopher Davies Amberley, 2017 ISBN 9781445672823 The Story of Stamford Hospital As told in the 19th, 20th & 21st centuries Friend of Stamford Hospital Spiegl Press, 2016 ISBN 9781526204042 Uffington in the County of Lincolnshire In-depth account of one of Stamford's neighbouring villages N J Sheehan Sheehan, 2014, 2019 ISBN 9780957503861 Guild, Hospital and Aldermen N Hill & A Rogers Abramis, 2013 ISBN 9781845495824 The Wardens: Managing a late Medieval Hospital Browne's Hospital, Stamford, 1495-1518 Alan Rogers (ed) Abramis, 2013 ISBN 9781845495992 People and Property in Medieval Stamford Alan Rogers (ed) Abramis, 2012 ISBN 9781845495480 Noble Merchant: William Browne Alan Rogers Abramis, 2012 ISBN 9781845495503 Stamford University: the stuttering dream The story of Stamford's repeated attempts to become a university town N J Sheehan Speigl Press, 2012 ISBN 9780993147920 The Act Book of St Katherine's Guild Stamford, 1480-1534 Alan Rogers (ed) Abramis, 2011 ISBN 9781845495091 Stamford Through Time Christopher Davies Amberley, 2010 ISBN 9781848684812 In Search of Daniel Lambert A winter talk for Stamford Museum at Stamford Theatre 5 March 2009 Philippa Massey Stamford Museum ISBN The Stamford Volunteer Rifle Corps David Nalson Stamford Museum, 2008 ISBN Ploughs, Chaff Cutters & Steam Engines Various authors Ed Ken Redmore Society for Lincolnshire History & Archaeology 2007 ISBN 903582309 Stamford Pubs and Breweries A history of the drink trade in Stamford Martin Smith Spiegl Press, 2006 ISBN William Browne's Town The Stamford Hall Book, Vol. 1, 1465-1492 Alan Rogers (ed) Stamford Survey Group, 2005 ISBN 9780950283210 Stamford Past Up-to-date modern account of Stamford's colourful past. Rich with images. Christopher Davies Phillimore, 2002 ISBN 1860772285 The Story of Stamford Stamford History Martin Smith Martin Smith & Walkers Books 2000 ISBN 1899141006 Stamford in Lincolnshire A collection of early Stamford photographs Chris Hunt Spiegl Press, 1985 ISBN Pick of Stamford History of the Pick Motor Company Michael Key Paul Watkins. 1994 ISBN 9781871615531 Stamford and the Civil War Civil War History Christopher Davies Paul Watkins, 1992 ISBN 9781871615296 Stamford Then & Now Chronicle of Architectural & Social Change Martin Smith Paul Watkins, Stamford 1992 ISBN 1871615364 A Century of Stamford Coachbuilding Coach & Wagon building Michael Key Paul Watkins, Stamford 1990 ISBN 1871615747 Stamford Memories Life in a country town during the 1930s and the 1940s Betty Clark Licolnshire Books ISBN The Book of Stamford Alan Rogers Barracuda Books, 1983 ISBN 9780860231233 A Short History of the Stamford and Rutland Hospital J Quinlan & A Rogers The Friends of Stamford Hospital, 1978 ISBN The Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford The Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford J S Hartley & A Rogers Univerity of Nottingham, 1974 ISBN 902031295 A History of Lincolnshire Alan Rogers Darwen Finlayson, 1970 ISBN 852080603 The Medieval Buildings of Stamford Alan Rogers Univerity of Nottingham, 1970 ISBN 902031023 The Making of Stamford Alan Rogers (ed) Leic. Uni. Press, 1965 ISBN 9780718510503