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

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

Here you will find useful links to other websites of interest. Join The Stamford Local History Society and enjoy talks and visits around our local area. LINKS Below are links to other websites relating to Stamford and the surrounding area which may be of interest. Published Articles Can be downloaded here Open Document Lincs to the Past Lincolnshire archives View Website Stamford Civic Society local civic society View Website The Stamford Mercury Archive Trust newspaper archive View Archive Browne's Hospital Stamford historical almshouse View Website Portable Antiquities Scheme British Museum View Website Stamford Town Hall local council View Website West Deeping Heritage Group local history society View Website Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology academic research View research Collyweston Historical and Preservation Society local history society View Website Stamford Boys of 1911 from the 1911 census View Website Deepings Heritage local history society View Website Rutland Local History & Record Society local history society View Website East Midlands History and Heritage East Midland's heritage View Website

Explore Stamford’s 19th-century life — a period of growth, Georgian elegance, and changing local traditions. 19th CENTURY Explore Stamford’s 19th-century life — a period of growth, Georgian elegance, and changing local traditions. Blackstone Tractor Seat Hayes & Son Milk Cart Pick & Company Jeffery & Blackstone John Brumhead Blackstone Engine Plate Parish & Sons - Tie Press The Portico c1860 Willcocks Kitchen Range J Brumhead - Silver Watch Tradesmen's Tokens Daniel Lambert Burghley House Tea Ware Barrel Ring & Opener Wagon Wheel Nut

Unearth the story of Stamford’s makers, mills, and machines — the ingenuity that powered a working town. Industry & Engineering Unearth the story of Stamford’s makers, mills, and machines — the ingenuity that powered a working town. Wagon Wheel Nut

the plague and parish registers < Back Stamford and the Plague, 1604 Aubrey Plowman 1980 The following article written by Aubrey Plowman, first appeared in issue 4 of the Stamford Historian in 1980. It grew out of the Stamford Survey Group's project on population changes in Stamford from the middle of the 16th century to the early 19th century. The article describes in vivid terms the greatest plague to hit Stamford during this period. It also provides an interesting example of how parish registers can be used to build up a picture of how the plague developed and spread within the town. Stamford and the Plague 1604 Author’s note: The events set out in the following pages took place in Stamford over 450 years ago and, unpleasant though the subject-matter be, the fact that no previous detailed account of it has been made makes it necessary to record it, in order that another small segment of the town’s history can be fitted into its rightful place. It would have been quite easy to have reduced the article to cold statistics, but I decided against this on the grounds that what happened in the year in question involved people – our ancestors. Further, I have used someone’s ancestor to help me in this attempt to recreate a picture of events of that tragic year of 1604. The months of the year used in this account are based on the modern calendar and not that of the period, hence the references in the history books to 1603 as being the year of the plague. Aubrey R Plowman An entry in the baptism register of the parish church of St Michael’s Stamford, for the year 1579, reads, ‘John Eame was born at St. Leonard’s in the plague time’. A vague statement, but then, at the time it was written, the parish clerk would not assume that further comment was necessary. The reference however is probably to the outbreak of plague that took place in the town four years earlier, in 1575. Many things are said to have plagued man, but perhaps the only true plague was the ‘Black Death’ or bubonic plague. Its origins have never been clearly defined, but at least three pandemics of plague have ravaged vast areas of the world, leaving many millions dead in their wake and causing the social and economic structures of whole continents to collapse. It raged through Britain and Ireland about the fourth century, known then as the ‘Plague of Cadwalader’s time’. The second pandemic was that of the Middle Ages, ‘The Black Death of 1348-50. In the late nineteenth century, it was active again; in India, as many as four million perished. It made an attempt to gain a foothold in this country in the early 1900s but without success, and mercifully claimed only a handful of victims. The plague of the Middle Ages was the largest and most protracted of these pandemics. The disease itself arrived in Britain from France during the summer of 1348. For two years it raged unchecked, leaving towns and villages devastated. In the spring and summer of 1349, it probably carried off about one in three of the population in Stamford. The ‘Black Death’ was at its peak from 1348 to 1349, but it was to be another three hundred years before this country would see itself free of this dreaded disease. In the 150 years before 1665, there were only a dozen years in which London was free of plague. In 1603 30,000 dies in a great outbreak of plague in the capital city, and throughout this period, generation after generation would come to accept the plague as just another burden to contend with in the continual struggle for survival.With man’s ability to adapt himself to living with the constant threat of the plague, it would be reasonable to assume that when, at the beginning of February in the year 1604, a death from plague was reported in Stamford, very few of those who were aware of the fact would be unduly alarmed or concerned at the news. If indeed the townsfolk in general were not too worried about this particular death, this was not quite the attitude taken by the town’s officials. For the plague had already threatened, or even perhaps been present in the town for some months, although this was apparently its first victim. At a meeting of the council members on the second December 1603, it was agreed that a ‘Cabbin should be erected and built where persons infected with the sickness called the ‘Plague’ should be kepte and mayneteyned and that for the charges thereof, the fourthe part of a fifteen should be presently collected and gathered’ (i.e. for the living plague victims). Such action may have been in anticipation of the plague arriving in the town, for it precedes the first recorded plague by at least two months. The cabin can be seen marked on Speed’s map of 1610. One who might have been aware of the circumstances regarding that death was Reginald Waters, doctor and gent’, but although the death took place within his own parish, it is probable that he did not pay a great deal of attention to the matter. Why should he? Although a death caused by the plague was not an every-day event, it certainly wasn’t all that rare. The plague had been claiming victims for as long as he could remember, although there had been nothing serious in the town for some years past. A few deaths had been attributed to the disease in 1581, but not since September 1575 had these been a serious epidemic, and even that outbreak had not been widespread. And in any case, Reginald Waters, no doubt, had far more interesting and important matters to think about. The period 1603-4 came to be very important in the life of Reginald Waters. He, like others of his time, had already experienced his share of calamitous moments. His first wife had dies in 1594; he re-married the following year, but their first-born, Dorothy, lived only for 17 months. However, the past few years had seen things change for the better, and he now had two sons, John and William, aged five and three respectively. He lived a fairly comfortable life, with servants to tend his needs. And now a further momentous event took place; he had been elected Alderman of the town. To hold a position of authority in the town was nothing new to Reginald Waters. He was admitted as a freeman in 1588 and in 1589 was elected to the council, but was dismissed in 1590; he was re-elected in 1598 and remained in office until his elevation to Alderman in this year of 1604. The duties required of an Alderman kept Reginald Waters quite active. The town had lost a lot of its former prestige in the fields of commerce and learning, but had not fallen completely into a backwater. Assistance in preventing this fate came chiefly from the town’s close association with the Cecil family particularly Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s Lord High Treasurer of England. There were also the town’s connections with the Fens, the use of the river Welland and the Great North Road, all factors that helped in keeping the town alive. And also, there are indications that, since 1595, the population was once more on the increase. So most of Alderman Waters’ day was routine: meetings of civic or charity committees and entertaining of visiting dignitaries. And there was always the hope of more worthy tasks. His predecessor William Salter – now the town clerk – had attended upon King James, passing through the town on his journey from Scotland to London. And so, perhaps, Reginald Waters dreamed of some such memorable juncture. But during that February of 1604 the Alderman and the town went about their day-to-day occupations, and by the end of the month it is more than possible that most had already forgotten the ‘victim’ of the plague that the beginning of the month had brought. In March a very small outbreak of the plague was reported within St George’s parish, resulting in four or five deaths, and although – as the days passed – it gave no indication of spreading, the Alderman put into force the collecting of taxes as agreed by the council at the meeting of December the second 1603. Also at this time, the Council, fearing that prominent people would leave the town ‘because some houses in the town were affected with plague’ and that therefore those who remained would have greater burdens in helping the sick, and that the markets would ‘fail, be defamed, disgraced and foresaken’; and that visitors, seeing houses shut up, would think the plague worse than it was and wouldn’t stop to buy things, agreed to levy fines on those who left the town. But as the month of March continued there was nothing to indicate the plague’s intention to spread. At the beginning of April however, the disease claimed another victim. The Alderman would have been advised. The death took place outside the town wall, at the White Friary. But before many more days had passed. The plague was active once more, this time in St Michael’s parish, on his own doorstep, and as April drew to its end, another eight had fallen prey to the dreaded plague. Alarming as this was, what proved more terrifying was that the disease was on the move and spreading at a disturbing rate. The plague turned into an epidemic with such speed that within a space of four weeks, of the 82 deaths recorded in the parishes of St Michael and St George, at least 75 were recorded as being a result of this scourge. And yet at this time the rest of the town was still virtually free of the pestilence. In order to appreciate the pace at which the plague spread, it would be worth pausing at this stage in order to consider the causes of the plague, the conditions on which it thrived, and the terror associated with it. Writers dealing with the subject argue as to its origins, but all accept the connection between the disease and the black rat. In his book Man against Germs , A L Baron describes the plague as the reluctant germ, in that it was a disease of the black rat, and that it was spread by the parasite, or flea, leaving the cold dead body of the rat in search of warmer conditions, found in man, a suitable substitute. Most of us can conjure up mental pictures of the Black Death of the obscure Middle Ages. The cloaked scurrying figure, the white, suspicious, peering face; one would still have heard the rattle of wooden carts, and seen the awesome mark of the red cross on the doors of plague-infected houses. Only a witness of the day would be able to see the terror in the eyes of those involved, or hear the cries of sufferers. The Black Death had changed its name to the more simple ‘plague’, but nothing else about the disease had altered. Very few of those who suffered at the hands of the plague would know the luxury of medical attention, but most would easily recognise the symptoms: the pallor and shuddering of the afflicted, the ominous blotches on the skin, and the dreadful black boils. From the appearance of the first symptoms until the inevitable death took no longer than five days. Nine out of every ten cases would not expect to survive. What caused the plague was still not known, at this time. Most God fearing people still thought of it as retribution for the evils of the world, as can be seen from the entry written in St George’s register ‘The first that died of the visitation of the sickness of God’. The Elizabethan Prayer Book contained special prayers about plague, saying that it was a judgement from God. Within the first week of June, deaths were being reported from all parts of the town, including St Martin’s. Husbands, wives, sons and daughters, perished as the plague devastated home after home. The household of Robert Thomas lost three sons and two daughters inside of 15 days; the Martin family lost one son and two daughters within two days; and Robert Miller and his son both died within two days. The list is almost endless. By the time the month was ended another 134 burials had been recorded. Throughout this time the authorities were unable to offer any assistance to the inhabitants of the town, and by now Alderman Waters had his own household to attend to. The 12th June saw the plague within his quarters. A servant of the house was down with the sickness, and there was Susan, his wife, to consider; the birth of their fourth child was expected any day. And, despite all his skill and education there was very little he could do but wait and hope. As the hours and days slowly passed, the servant’s condition worsened and by the 17th of the month he was dead, but the rest of the household appear to have escaped the plague’s first attempt to gain a hold. Three days later, his wife gave birth to a son, Perry, and for the time being the Alderman’s personal crisis was over. But not for others of his own class; Mary Wolf of St Mary’s parish buried five of her servants inside of three days. She saw the death of her son William, and, on the last day of June the plague claimed Mary herself, together with another member of her household, Jane Tailor. And there were others Reginald waters would no doubt be acquainted with. Seth Hyman, William Clarke, Robert Ramsden, a former Alderman, all had their own share of grief. By t he time the epidemic reached its peak in July, business activities in the town would have been almost at a standstill. Markets that supplied most of the town’s food requirements would by now have almost ceased to operate, adding further misery to the poorer members of the community and the region around. The mortality rate was very high within the working-class areas of the town. The high density of their buildings together with the overcrowded living conditions made them ideal breeding-grounds for this particular disease. The more-wealthy, with their spacious dwellings and a much higher standard of cleanliness, enjoyed some measure of isolation and therefore better protection from members of their own class. Apart from the high mortality, many more townspeople would have been incapacitated by the plague, creating problems about such employment that was still available; even finding labour for the grim task of disposing of the dead would not have been easy. Further, despite the levy imposed by the council, many a family would have left the town at the outbreak of the plague, some never to return. But perhaps the chief cause behind the town’s chaotic state was the general fear of association. In fact, for most it was a time to keep oneself to oneself. In the meantime, Alderman Waters may have considered himself fortunate. As the days of June passed, the death rate in his own parish began to drop, and there had been no other serious attacks from the plague since before the 17th. But as the month drew to a close, a second servant went sick with the all too obvious symptoms of the disease, the nightmare started all over again: the constant watching and waiting and always, with him, the fear that the plague would seek out those most dear to him. On 1st July the second servant died and, to add to the Alderman’s anxiety, his new born son, Perry, was also in poor health. The 11th of the month saw yet another tragedy, as the family mourned the death of the child [1]. August brought hope to the greater part of the town in the central and eastern sectors. The worst part of the epidemic was over, but not for those living in the parish of All Saints and possibly St Martins. Here the plague was still raging. All Saints recorded 31 deaths in August compared with only four in St George’s parish. But the end was in sight; as the summer waned, so too did the plague, and September saw the town’s mortality rate almost back to pre-1604 levels, and the survivors setting about the task of bringing their town back to sanity and its normal status. Recorded burials for 1604 total 621. Almost 600 of these took place from April to September. Church registers for the year bear witness to the turmoil the town was in. Some of the parish register totals differ from those in the Bishop’s Transcripts. Dates are not always in order, indicating that the clerk at the time made notes elsewhere and entered them into the register at a later date. In the case of St Martin’s there are no dates given for any entry in the burial register for the whole of 1604. This inaccuracy in the individual registers could signify a greater mortality rate than that of the accountable total. The town’s average annual burial rate for the ten year period prior to 1604 was 64, so that at least ten times the average number of deaths is recorded in this year of calamity. A close look at he table of parish totals – shown at the end of this article – reveals a distinct pattern to the movement of the plague. The initial outbreak almost certainly took place along the boundary line of the parishes of St Michael and St George. If this is correct, then a study of the town map of the period may well disclose a likely area, possibly a high density poor area in the vicinity of the present day St George’s Street. From these two parishes, the epidemic then moved into St Mary’s parish and perhaps St Martin’s, followed by St John’s, and finally into All Saints parish. The town in general took almost forty years to recover its population losses, some parishes taking longer than others. St Mary’s recovered its losses in under 35 years, whereas St Michael’s took nearer 60 years. Surprisingly, there were more marriages during the plague year. St Michael’s recorded 14 ceremonies, all taking place between September and December, after the plague had largely died out; compared with an average of only four per year for the three years before, and the three years after the plague year. Most historians of the town have mentioned another major epidemic of plague in or about 1642, with deaths computed in the hundreds. Generally, authors of these works have tended to copy one another. That the plague was active in the town at that time is not disputed. Richard Butcher, Town Clerk and historian – though not in office in 1642 – should have been in a position to verify the fact. But William Harrod writing later, could find no further evidence to substantiate the figures quoted, and concluded that the Civil War had disrupted the keeping of parish registers. It is quite true that some of the parish churches have either no registers or those that do exist are incomplete. But where they were kept, they give no indication of an epidemic on the scale of that of 1604. Finally, what of Alderman Reginald Waters? Well, he survived the plague, as did the rest of his family. Later on, his wife presented him with two daughters, Grace and Elizabeth. He continued as a council member until 1614, but was never made Alderman again. His year of office was memorable, and his name has now gone down in history – but perhaps not quite in the way he would have wished. Footnote [1] There is no firm evidence that Perry Waters died as a result of the plague. Research sources Parish church registers, Bishops Transcripts, Hall Book The totals are for all recorded deaths and not just those of the plague. The totals for St Martin’s are correct, but the lack of dates in the church register made it necessary for me to estimate the monthly totals. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Step into Stamford’s shopfront past — bustling markets, family-run stores, and the evolving rhythm of local trade. Shops & Shopping Step into Stamford’s shopfront past — bustling markets, family-run stores, and the evolving rhythm of local trade. Hayes & Son Milk Cart J Claypole & Son Parish & Sons - Tie Press Stamford Half Penny Tradesmen's Tokens

Are you interested in your family history? Do you have ancestors in or around Stamford? The Stamford Local History Society may be able to help with your research, contact us today. FAMILY HISTORY In conjunction with Stamford Library, volunteers from the Society assist the public in utilising all of the freely available digital platforms to trace their ancestors. Our Workshops The Society hosts weekly family history and research sessions at Stamford Library, making use of online databases and the library’s Local History Collection. These include but are not limited to the following: You can seek advice on searching for Military Records, using Census information from 1841, finding Births, Marriages and Deaths, and delving into past newspaper articles. The workshops take place on Wednesday mornings between 10.30 and 12.30 and are led by officers and committee members of the Society. These sessions are free to both members and non-members and a Lincolnshire Library Card is required.

From 1977 to 1982 the Stamford Survey Group published several editions of The Stamford Historian. Available for researchers at the Stamford Library. The contents of all issues of The Stamford Historian From 1977 to 1982 the Stamford Survey Group published six editions of The Stamford Historian . Below are the contents of each edition which are available for researchers at the Stamford Library. In addition a separate booklet in the Library gives a Name and Subject Index for volumes 1-4.

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

< Back Stamford in the Second World War 1940: Pillboxes By John Millard and Mike Sockett A printed copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Stamford Half Penny BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Stamford Half Penny On the restoration of King Charles II in 1660 there was a shortage of small coinage and as a result towns like Stamford issued small non silver coins. The Stamford coin had the words Half Penny and the Borough Arms on the obverse and on the reverse a woolsack and the words Charged to Ye Overseers. There were minor variants and some coins were slightly smaller and thinner. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next