Stamford Victory Mug BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Stamford Victory Mug W. E. MARTIN was a Stamford business man whose firm built agricultural equipment on Ryhall Road and was there when the First World War was declared and they were the second largest employer in the town after Blackstone & Company. In August 1914 Mr Martin was the Mayor of Stamford and the Town Council decided that he should stay on until hostilities ceased. The mug is dated 1919, although we now see World War One as ceasing with the armistice on November 11th 1918 the Treaty of Versailles was not signed with Germany until June 28th 1919. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

J Claypole & Son BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL J. Claypole & Son. Stamford & Peterborough Edison Gold Moulded Records When the Sunset Turns the Ocean Blue to Gold The firm of J. Claypole & Son were sited at the bottom of Red Lion Street and sold not only the latest Edison Music Tubes but also musical instruments. The shop had a Lift to upper floors where pianos were displayed. Before the invention of the flat record, a record was a cylinder. The phonograph cylinder was patented by Thomas Edison in 1878. This example -When the Sunset Turns the Ocean Blue to Gold - was recorded by Byron G. Harlan in 1904. An online recording can be found on the University of California Santa Barbara Library Cylinder Audio Archive Website. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

< Back The Brazenose Site in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2013 The Brazenose name is apocryphally associated with the Stamford Schism in the fourteenth century, when disaffected students and masters migrated to the Lincolnshire town from Oxford. The scholars and their tutors defected from Brasenose Hall and Merton College to escape internecine disputes between northern and southern factions at the university. The first group of dissidents arrived in Stamford in November 1333 and they were followed by further waves in May, June and July 1334 (Peck [a]), to the consternation of their alma mater. They are said to have brought with them a brazen knocker which they affixed to the door of a hall which they occupied in their newly-adopted home. Encouraged by the townsfolk, the Oxford academics read lectures, held debates and taught many of the local youth (Peck [a]). The determined suppression of this neo-university in Stamford by royal decree in 1335 at the behest of the powerful Oxford lobby is well documented. While it is claimed that the peripatetic brazen nose knocker gave its name to the Stamford property as well as to the eponymous college in Oxford (Madan) [1], the only contemporaneous reference to Stamford’s Brazenose was the mention in 1335 of ‘Philip le maniciple atte Brasenose’ (Hartley and Rogers). The Oxford antiquarian Anthony á Wood added the words ‘in Stanford’ (Wood [a]) but this may have been an unfounded assumption as the first mention of a property in Stamford called Brasenose does not occur until 1559, when a building belonging to the Corporation went by this title (Hartley and Rogers). The lease on this property described it as ‘a messuage called Brassen Nose in St. Paul’s [parish], with all houses, barns, stables and other buildings’. Quoting Brian Twyne’s account of his visit to Stamford in 1617, Wood recounted that the building retained its old name of Brasenose. It had ‘a fair refectory therein’ and also ‘a great gate and a wicket; upon which wicket is a face or head of old cast brass with a ring through the nose thereof’ (Wood [b]) (Fig.1). Fig.1 Engraving of Brazen-nose College Gate in Peck’s Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, 1727 In 1673, when Brazenose College was in a very poor state of repair, a building lease was given to Anthony Markham instructing him to spend £300 on the property within three years (Hartley and Rogers). The lease also stipulated that he was ‘to affix ye Brazen Nose upon ye court gate next ye street or elsewhere as ye Mayor and Aldermen shall appoint’, which suggests that it had been removed from the gate at some stage. However, Markham paid to be discharged from his lease within the year in order to move to London. In 1687/88, when William Feast was Mayor, the Corporation voted to mortgage Brazen Nose as they had overspent their budget for it. Alderman Richard Burman proposed to make it fit to hold his mayoral feast the following year and was awarded a grant towards ‘flooring such roomes and glaseing soe much of ye windows as hee shall thinke necessary’ (Simpson). However, Burman did not become mayor and the old building was pulled down that same year [2]. According to the Royal Commission survey, Brazenose College appears to have been a large stone building around a courtyard, whose surviving gateway indicated a thirteenth century date (Royal Commission [a]). Architect T G Jackson dated the Brazenose Gateway as no later than about 1260- 70 (Madan) and, indeed, it may date from the first half of the thirteenth century (Royal Commission [b]). Peck informs us that the gateway ‘stood formerly more backward than it does now; but, when pulled down with the college, the corporation, knowing the value of that piece of antiquity, ordered it to be set up again, though not in the very same place where it stood before, yet as near as might be’ (Peck [b]). However, although Peck had been given this information by Alexander Morris, a workman involved in the demolition of the college, Markham’s lease implies that the gate already stood alongside the street and the Royal Commission could find no evidence that it had been rebuilt, thereby raising the possibility that it has remained in-situ. The documental evidence is inconclusive. John Speed’s map of about 1600 (Fig. 2) shows Brasenose College standing well back from the road. In its original form, published in The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine in 1611, the map could be construed as indicating that the gateway is positioned slightly behind the north boundary wall. However, old drawings of the gateway (Fig.1) depict an ornamental string course running above the apex of the arch, and Stukeley's sketch of 1735 (Fig.3) indicates that this feature extended along the wall to the east. Fig.2 John Speed’s map of Stamford, published in 1611. (Brasenose College is located in the upper right quadrant and is indicated by the letter ‘L’. Its entrance gate from St Paul’s Street appears to stand back from the wall) The wall is now lower and the string course no longer exists but, as it is unlikely that the boundary wall was rebuilt along its length, the earlier presence of this decorative horizontal band supports the contention that the gate is probably still in its original position (Hartley [a]). If the gate appears on Speed’s map to be too far to the west along the street compared to its present position, this may be an illusion as the wall was rounded at the junction of St. Paul’s Street and Brazenose Lane in 1923 as part of a road-widening scheme (Till [a]). Fig.3 William Stukeley’s drawing of Brazen-Nose College in 1735 After the medieval property was demolished in 1688, a new building (hereafter referred to as Brazenose Hall) was erected on the Brazenose site using recycled materials from the old college. Brazenose Hall, which was still often called The College (Hartley and Rogers), was evidently completed before the turn of the century as rents were being collected by 1699 at least. It was probably let for several years before being assigned to a charity school in 1704 [3] (Howgrave) and it became the town workhouse in 1739 (Hartley and Rogers). Stukeley’s drawing of this building in 1735 shows that it was erected directly on the west side of the ancient gate (Fig. 3) (Stukeley). While Stukeley drew only the ground floor of the street frontage of the property, engravings of the town by Peter Tillemans in 1719 and by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck in 1743 show its full elevation (Fig. 4). Fig.4 Detail of (a) ‘A Prospect of the Town of Stanford’ by Tillemans (1719) from the frontispiece of Peck’s Antiquarian Annals (Brazen-nose College is the building designated by the number 10); (b) Bucks ‘The South Prospect of Stamford in the County of Lincoln’ (1743) (The Workhouse is indicated by the number 16) Collating these visual clues, Martin Smith created a plausible depiction of the building in the mid- eighteenth century (Fig. 5) (Smith). Fig.5 Brazenose Hall and Gateway, adapted from Stukeley’s drawing by Martin Smith (Reproduced from ‘Stamford Then and Now’ by kind permission of the author) As Knipe’s map shows (Fig. 6), the original Brazenose College was situated on the east side of the current Brazenose site which nowadays comprises part of the Stamford School estate and includes the present Brazenose House. Fig.6 Extract from James A. Knipe’s ‘Plan of the Borough of Stamford and Saint Martins Stamford Baron’, 1833, showing the Brazenose site The Brazenose site lies within two parishes, St. George’s to the west and St Michael’s to the east (Fig. 7). Although the original Brazenose College was situated in the parish of St. Paul, St. Paul’s parish was amalgamated with that of St. George following an Act of Parliament of 1548. Thus, a lease granted in 1578 by the Corporation to Richard Evely, a Stamford grocer, places the ‘messuage called The Brasson Noose’ in St George’s parish (Title deeds and leases [a]). Fig.7 Stamford parish boundaries within the town centre, based on Dewhirst and Nichol’s map, 1839 (Reproduced from The Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford by kind permission of the authors) The modern Brazenose site is highlighted in blue. However, another lease granted to Stamford yeoman Peter Clifford by the Corporation in 1627 refers to a cottage or tenement between Brasennose (tenant William Cammocke) on the west and a tenement in the tenure of William Walton on the east as being in St Paul’s parish (Title deeds and leases [b]), despite St Paul’s having merged with St George’s 79 years earlier. The bipartite nature of St. Michael’s parish can be explained by its smaller isolated eastern moiety being created by the amalgamation in 1556 of the church of Holy Trinity/St. Stephen, which stood just outside St. Paul’s Gate, with the church of St. Michael the Greater on High Street (Churches in Stamford). Entries in both the Stamford Hall Book and the Till Index state that the workhouse was in St. Michael’s parish (Stamford Hall Book; Till [b]). However, Knipe’s map shows the parish boundary passing northwards immediately to the west side of the medieval gateway. Fig.8 Mark indicating the boundary between St.George’s and St. Michael’s parishes (The boundary mark is shown in the left lower quadrant of the photograph) Its position is confirmed by a boundary mark in the form of a St. Andrew’s cross cut into the wall beside the arch (Fig. 8). This would therefore place the workhouse in St. George’s parish rather than St. Michael’s. The detailed layout of the Brazenose site in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, including the number and arrangement of its buildings, is uncertain. However, by the mid-eighteenth century, in addition to the workhouse, there were other residential properties and various outbuildings, including a brew house, coach houses, stables and a dovecote (Till [c]), as well as a large garden. Two of three houses, which were previously situated close to the workhouse, had been pulled down by William Feast. The original Brazenose site, now designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument, expanded in a westerly direction to incorporate Brazenose House with its yard and outbuildings. The Royal Commission gives the date of Brazenose House at 28 St. Paul’s Street as before 1722 (Royal Commission [b]). From 1727 to 1806, the buildings and gardens on the Brazenose site were acquired in stages by successive generations of the Hurst family (Till; Maddison). In 1727, Thomas Hurst (1693-1746) bought a messuage in St. George’s parish, near the spinning school, from Elizabeth Margerum. This comprised the remaining part of a building (lately occupied by Thomas Cade) which had previously been divided into three tenements, including the two pulled down by William Feast, along with one acre of land. Thomas Hurst died in 1746 and in 1752 his wife Elizabeth (1694-1770) sold this property, with its acre of land, brew house, granary and dovecote, to their son James (1727/8-1787). After Elizabeth Lepla died in c.1731, her neighbouring house at 28 St. Paul’s Street (the present Brazenose House) passed through the hands of her sons Mark and Daniel before it was bought (along with other dwellings occupied by Francis Bottomley and Thomas Spink and another untenanted) by James Hurst in 1749. After living there with his mother Elizabeth, James married Philippa Hyde (d. 1793) in 1760, by whom he fathered six children including James Jnr (b.1763–c.1842/1846) [4]. In 1767, he purchased the adjoining plot, between no. 28 and the workhouse, from Stamford Corporation. This consisted of a garden and a cottage which he had been using as a stable. On his death in 1787, Philippa inherited the Brazenose properties and land, and a life interest in a messuage at 35 St. Martins, which James first acquired in 1751 (and had subsequently sold to and bought back from his brother, Rev Thomas Hurst). When Philippa died in 1793, the whole estate passed to their son, James Jnr, who was then living at the house in St. Martins. After William Stukeley re-founded the Brazen Nose Society in 1745, its early meetings were held on the Brazenose site (Gough and Nichols). Although it has been said that the actual venue was Brazenose Hall (Stanley), this seems improbable as the premises were occupied by the workhouse beyond the turn of the nineteenth century. The building gradually fell into disrepair in the late 1700s and regular reports on its poor condition were made to the Town Council (Hartley and Rogers). It was sold by the Corporation to James Hurst at public auction in 1806 (? 1805) (Stamford Hall Book) [5]. Hurst, then a captain in the Royal South Lincoln Militia, also bought an adjoining piece of ground, comprising a garden and barn between St. Paul’s Street and a public lane on the east in St.Michael’s parish, which was offered in separate lot at the same auction (Stamford Hall Book; Till [d]) [6]. The barn had been used as a coach house by William Toon (Till [d]), who was the master of the workhouse. In 1822, Major Hurst, who was still living in St. Martin’s, sold all properties and grounds on the Brazenose site to his only son, Robert Stuart Hurst. These were, firstly, the messuage in St. George’s parish and its adjoining one acre of land, by then converted into yards and gardens with brew house, stables, coach houses, granaries, dovecote and outbuildings; and, secondly, the former workhouse with its yard, garden and outbuildings. Drakard says that it was R H Whitworth who bought the former spinning school cum workhouse in 1822 and promptly pulled it down, while leaving its ancient gateway intact (Drakard [a]). This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that in June 1822 Robert Stuart Hurst took the surname Whitworth by Warrant under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual (Till [e]), becoming R H Hurst Whitworth. The Whitworth name does not appear in street directories or electoral records. Fig.9 Brazenose Gate (2010) Presumably it was when the former workhouse was razed to the ground that the Brazenose name was transferred to the adjacent house at 28 St. Paul’s Street (Hartley and Rogers) and the site of the demolished building became its garden with the Brazenose Gateway built into its front wall (Fig.9). An archaeological evaluation of Stamford school in 1992, and later ground works in 1995, revealed the remains of walls which were thought to have been part of Brazenose College (Lincs to the Past). A stone-lined well shaft was also discovered (see Fig. 10 for location of well). After making extensive alterations to Brazenose House (Royal Commission [b]), Whitworth died in 1831 leaving the estate in equal shares to his three sisters, Sarah Isabella, Augusta and Harriet. In 1832, probably at the time when she married regimental surgeon Titus Berry, Sarah Isabella sold her one third share to her sisters, Augusta and Harriet. After inheriting the remaining half share of the estate on Augusta’s death in 1835, Harriet continued to live in Brazenose House until she died in 1878. In its 1872 edition, Miss Harriet is the only remaining Hurst shown in White’s Directory (White). In a letter to The Stamfordian in 1929, J H Philpot recalled that the Berrys used to spend winter with Miss Hurst in Stamford and that, when they all departed for London in the spring, the house was left in the charge of a childless couple, Mr Bellamy, the butler, and his wife, the housekeeper (Philpot). On Harriet’s death, the Brazenose estate finally passed out of the possession of the Hurst family when Brazenose House, with its associated buildings and grounds, was bought by Thomas Tertius Paget (1807-1892), a Leicester banker and Liberal Party politician, to accommodate his aunt, Mrs Lucy Johnson (1815-1890), widow of Lieutenant-General William Augustus Johnson [7]. When offered for sale in 1878, Brazenose was described as a family residence with stabling, outbuildings (including a saddle room, brewhouse and coach house), extensive grounds, lawn, kitchen garden and small paddock (Fig. 10). Brazenose House was, by then, the only remaining residential property on the site. Fig.10 Plan of Brazenose when put up for auction in 1878 (Reproduced by kind pernission of the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland) When re-advertised in 1890 after Mrs Johnson died, the auction particulars specified that the old knocker of Brasenose College, Oxford would be included in the sale. Brasenose College duly purchased the property and offered it for let after removing the knocker to Oxford. Having earlier taken the name, Brazenose House then took on the educational mantle of its predecessors. After 1890, Miss Collins and Miss Davies ran a girls’ school there from 1891-1898 and were succeeded firstly by the Misses Kellett, (Miss A M and presumably her sister) in 1898 and then by Miss Evelyn Thomas from 1914 until 1927/28. After almost four decades as a girls’ academy, Brazenose House was bought from the Oxford college by Stamford School in 1929. The identity of the Brazenose site is defined by its ancient knocker. Drakard says that the knocker was on the wicker (sic) door of the gateway until about the year 1807 (Drakard [b]), while Blore intimates that it may have been removed a few years later than this (Blore [a]). It was in James Hurst’s possession in 1822 (Drakard [a]) and was later held by Miss Hurst [8] (Burton) who kept it indoors. In his letter to The Stamfordian, Philpot wrote that, in the mid-nineteenth century, the ‘talking knocker’ (referring to the Stamford version of the legend of Roger Bacon) was displayed in a case in Brazenose House (Philpot). Following Mrs Johnson’s death, estate agent Mr Geo. W Johnson, who was handling the sale, removed the knocker from the house to his office in Stamford for security. After purchasing the house, garden and gateway, Brasenose College returned the knocker ceremoniously to Oxford, where it holds pride-of-place above the high table in the College Hall. This outcome would have disappointed Harrod who, in 1785, made the appeal, ‘It is to be hoped that the corporation will never suffer this head to be removed, for it is the most precious antique belonging to the town, and is shewn as such to inquisitive strangers’ (Harrod). In 1951, the Brazenose Gateway was scheduled by the Office of Works as an ancient monument. In 1961, a replica knocker was donated to Stamford School by Brasenose College to commemorate the secession. The old gateway was cleaned and restored and the replacement knocker was hung on its door (Fig.11). Fig.11 Replica Brazenose Knocker on Brazenose Gate in Stamford (2010) Considering the various comings and goings, mysterious name changes, and the renovation and replacement of properties, it is not surprising that some confusion has arisen between the demolished Brazenose Hall and the present Brazenose House which took its name. Both were built between the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The Royal Commission dates the present Brazenose House as early eighteenth century. If Elizabeth Lepla purchased it in 1722 from John Porter, who had been living there since buying it from Priscilla Beavor (Till [f]), presumably it was erected some time before 1720, although it does not feature in Tillemans' painting which was completed in 1719. In saying that Brazenose House was built in 1688 (Deed), Stamford School headmaster, Basil Deed mistook it for Brazenose Hall. Repeating the mistake that Brazenose House dates from c.1688, Pevsner and Harris (Pevsner and Harris) compounded the error by stating that it was rebuilt in 1723. Writing in 1846, Geo. Burton (Burton) made no mention that the former workhouse was pulled down in 1822. Fig.12 Brazenose House (2012) Brazenose House (Fig.12) is now the administrative headquarters of the combined Stamford Endowed Schools. Much of its garden has become a car park but there remain many features, especially its medieval gateway, to remind its staff, students and visitors of the illustrious history of the site. Footnotes 1. The ‘Brazenose’ form is normally used for properties in Stamford and ‘Brasenose’ for those in Oxford. In Stamford, early spellings of the name included Brassen Nose, Brasson Noose, Brasennose and Brazen-nose. Generally, the version given in the text corresponds to that used in the source material. 2. The frequently-given alternative date of 1668 has been attributed to an error originated by Harrod and repeated by many others including Blore, Drakard and Burton (Hartley and Rogers). Possibly some work was carried out on the building in 1668 as in 1688 the Corporation ordered that it be mortgaged on the grounds that more had been spent on it than expected. Referring in his essay to the setting up of the charity school in 1704, Howgrave describes Brazen-Nose College as ‘having been then but lately rebuilt’. It is unlikely that the property was completely rebuilt in 1668 and then pulled down and rebuilt again a mere twenty years later. 3. Blue Coat School was a charity school where poor children of the town and neighbourhood were instructed in religion and taught to read, write and sing psalms, while being employed in spinning (Howgrave). The rebuilt Brazenose was occupied exclusively by the school until about 1739, when half of the building was reclaimed by the Corporation and converted into a parish workhouse. When the rest of the property was also given over to the workhouse (Blore [b]), the stewards of the Charity rented a small house on the north side of St. Paul’s Street (on a site now occupied by Stamford School) for use as a schoolroom, before acquiring a new building on St. Peter’s Hill in 1838 (Davies). Although Blore states that the partial conversion of Brazenose to a workhouse was carried out in or before the year 1734 (Blore [b]), account and vestry books confirm that it was 1738 or 1739 when the parishes of St. Michael and St. John separately agreed that a workhouse was needed for the maintenance of their poor. St. Michael’s received a loan to fit out the workhouse in April 1740. In 1791/2, it was being used by St. Michael’s, St. John’s, St. George’s and All Saints parishes but St. George’s appears to have withdrawn in 1802 (Hartley [b]). It would appear that the building continued to be used for this purpose until at least 1813 (Vestry Books), despite being sold by the Corporation to James Hurst in 1806. Tenants and masters of the workhouse from 1761 until its closure included Mr Simonds (Symonds), William Gray, Henry Knowles, William Kent, Thomas Frisby, Thomas Kirby, Peter Pearson, Basil Farrow (Ferrar), William Toon and Mrs Toon. 4. Street directories indicate that James Hurst died between 1842 and 1846. 5. The Hall Book entry for 29 August 1805 records the Corporation’s decision to sell the workhouse ‘at auction on the twenty eight day of September next to the best bidder’. Annotations confirm that it was sold to James Hurst Esq but do not specify when. Drakard and Burton say that Hurst bought the workhouse in about 1816 (Drakard [b]; Burton), evidently after being promoted to Major in the meantime (Pigot). However, writing in 1813, Blore states that the Corporation had sold the property to James Hurst a few years previously (Blore [a]), which makes it likely that 1806 is the correct date. 6. In 1424, John Whiteside of Stamford gave the garden in the corner plot to John Brown. It previously belonged to Thomas Barker, a local shoemaker. The south boundary of the garden abutted on the town wall east (Rogers), which is consistent with Speed’s map showing the town wall veering inwards to the southeast corner of Brazenose College. The tenement to the west of the garden (on the plot which was later purchased by Thomas Hurst) was owned by John Stockton, a clerk (Rogers). In the early 1800s, the southern portion of the garden was sold by the Corporation to John Boyfield (Till [d]) 7. Deed erroneously described Mrs Johnson as the owner of Brazenose House; she was a tenant. 8. If Burton was referring to Harriet when he described Miss Hurst as James Hurst’s sister, then he was incorrect. Rather she was his daughter and the sister of Robert Stuart Hurst Whitworth. References Blore, Tho. An Account of the Public Schools, Hospitals, and other Charitable Foundations, in the Borough of Stanford in the Counties of Lincoln and Rutland. Stanford: Drakard, 1813 [a] p.23-4; [b] 100-1 Burton, Geo. Chronology of Stamford. Stamford: Robert Bagley & London: Edwards and Hughes, 1846 p.43 Churches in Stamford. Holy Trinity/ St Stephen. www.stamfordchurches.co.uk/holy-trinity.shtml Accessed 08.03.2012 Davies, Christopher. Stamford Bluecoat School. Stamford Historian 1977; 1: 36-40 Deed, B.L. A History of Stamford School. Cambridge: University Press, 1954 p.28 Drakard, John. The History of Stamford in the County of Lincoln. Stamford: Drakard, 1822 [a] p.609; [b] p.312-3 Gough, Mr. and Nichols, J. Some account of the Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding. In: Nichols, John. Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century. Vol. VI (1). London, 1812 pp.4-5 Harrod, W. The Antiquities of Stamford and St. Martin’s. Vol. 1. Stamford: Harrod, 1785 p.71 Hartley, John [a] Personal communication; [b] ibid Hartley, John S. and Rogers, Alan. The Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford. Stamford Survey Group Report 2, 1974. Published by University of Nottingham. pp.76-7 Howgrave, Francis. The Antiquities and Present State of Stamford. An Essay of the Ancient and Present State of Stamford. An Account of the Charity School. Stamford, 1726 pp.105-8 Lincs to the Past. Site of Brazenose College, Stamford (Reference name MLI30625). www.lincstothepast.com Accessed 11.12.2011 Madan, F. The Name and Arms of the College, including the Brazen Nose and the Stamford Migration. Brasenose College Quatercentenary Monographs. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1909 pp.14-20 Maddison, A.R., ed. Lincolnshire Pedigrees (The Publications of The Harleian Society). London, 1903 pp.524-6 Peck, Francis. The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford (Academia tertia Anglicana). London, 1727 [a] XI, iii; [b] XI, vii Pevsner, Nikolaus and Harris, John. Lincolnshire. The Buildings of England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1964 p.671 Philpot, J.H. Brazenose. Stamfordian 1929; 8(2): 15-7 Pigot and Co.’s National Commercial Directory of Lincolnshire, 1835 Rogers, Alan (ed.). People and Property in Medieval Stamford. Bury St Edmunds: Abramis Academic Publishing, 2012 p.342 (161.14/2) Royal Commission on Historical Monuments England. An Inventory of Historical Monuments. The Town of Stamford. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1977 [a] p.144; [b] pp.149-50 St. Michael’s Parish Vestry Books and Accounts Books 1738-1813 Simpson, Justin. Stamford Parish Registers. (Extracted from the Reliquary Quarterly Journal and Review) p.216 Smith, Martin. Stamford Then and Now. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1992 p.105 Stamford Hall Book IV (1773-1805) p.388 Stanley, S.H.F. Brazenose. Stamfordian 1983; Autumn: 31-35 Stukeley, William. Designs of Stanford’s Antiquitys, 1735. Plate 70; Designs, 75 Till, Eric. Card Index. Museum Collection, now held at Stamford Library, based on photocopies of Stamford’s Hall Books, Vols. I and II (1657-1714) and other documents. Brazenose: [a] 26.6.1923; [b] 25&26.3.1822; [c] 12&13.3.1752; [d] 7&8.5.1806; [e] 26&27.11.1832; [f] 14.4.1722 Title deeds and leases. Stamford Town Hall archives. [a] p.211.21; [b] p.214.57 White, William. History, Gazetteer and Directory of Lincolnshire. Sheffield: William White, 1872 Wood, Anthony a. Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis, 1674. Vol.1. First published in English by John Gutch. Oxford, 1792 [a] p.430; [b] p.432 Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and help of the following: John Smith, former curator of Stamford Museum John Craddock, archivist and former master of Stamford School John S Hartley, former master of Stamford School and member of the Stamford Survey Group Alan Rogers, Honorary Research Fellow in the School of History at the University of Nottingham and member of the Stamford Survey Group The staff and volunteers of Stamford Library, Stamford Town Hall and Spalding Gentlemen’s Society A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Building on the Stamford Manorial Waste The use of the Stamford Manorial Court Rolls to construct a building’s history. Chris Hunt, 2025 This short paper examines a surviving building sited on the former manorial waste of Stamford and how Court Rolls can be used to understand better that building’s development through the 19th century. The Stamford Manorial Court Rolls are contained within six contemporary bound volumes covering the period from 1695 to 1916 (with gaps); and the Manorial Survey of the Waste taken in 1846, mentioned in this article, are stored in the Stamford Borough Archives, which are held in Stamford Town Hall. The erstwhile Dolphin Inn is situated on East Street and has, since its closure, been converted into two semi-detached houses. The main building was at right angles to the road with an entrance from a small yard at the front of the inn. The site is located between East Street to the north, Elm Street to the south, a narrow lane to the east and the former Borough Fire Station to the west. The present building is of two storeys and constructed of coursed rubble with a Collyweston slate roof. Prior to alterations in the late 1970s there was a brick extension to the rear, which included a kitchen, outhouses and toilets on two sides of a small yard. To the front of the building, until the modernisation of the inn, there was a brick and pantile-roofed workshop, part of which had formerly been used as a shop. The site was even more restricted before the Second World War, with further outhouses, stables and a bake house. Until 1863 the inn was a private house. In that year the licence was transferred from the (Old) Dolphin Inn sited in Broad Street when it was demolished along with the Horns and Blue Boar Inn to provide a site for the new Roman Catholic Church and school room. Mr George Hunt, Brewer, of Water Street, St Martins owned both properties, having acquired the East Street site in the late 1840s from Mr Joseph Arnold. Being outside the line of the Town Wall and not part of pre-18th century developments, East Street, along with properties on North Street and West Street, was designated by the Manorial Court as being on the manorial waste. They were in the most part sited between the open fields and the line of the town’s former wall. It must be remembered that the open fields were not finally enclosed until the mid-1870s. During the early 19th century the waste was encroached upon by a number of buildings. These were often of an agricultural nature. However, by the late 1820s a number had been extended and converted into dwellings. The freemen of the borough were allowed by custom to stock the waste all the year round but it was these very people who encroached on the manor. The Manorial Court imposed fines on the encroachers; these were not rents although the Marquis of Exeter and his agents tried to cultivate this idea. The question of ownership is complex and a number did not pay their fines as they considered the properties to be freehold. Even the Marquis of Exeter paid a fine to his own Court. Using the Stamford Manorial Court Rolls it is possible to trace the history of a building through fines raised at the Court back through the 19th century. Although this does not provide an exact date of construction it does show changes in the scale of the encroachment through ownership records. Starting from the time that the Licence and Sign Board was transferred from the inn on Broad Street to East Street by Mr Henry Taylor, we find in the Court Rolls for 1863 that the building is described as ‘HUNT George (late Joseph Arnold) House late a private house now a public house called “the Dolphin”, garden, cowhouse, hovel and dunghill, latterly occupied by Robert Islip Junior and now by Taylor, fine 10/-.’ Henry Taylor used the premises to carry on the trade of baker, grocer, flour and provision dealer. He advertised stabling and good accommodation for travellers; carriers used the inn and he provided a market-ordinary on Fridays. The Taylor family managed the inn until the middle of 1898 when a Mr C. Waite acquired the lease from the Brewery (George and Henry Robert Hunt). The Hunt family had acquired the property in the late 1840s soon after the Survey of the Encroachment of the Manor of Stamford conducted in 1846. George Hunt was a successful brewer, farmer and owner of property. Hunt’s brewery was situated on Water Street, close to the Great Northern railway station. In the 1846 survey the property is stated as being owned by Joseph Arnold and occupied by John Morris. The description reads, ‘A House stone built and slated, sheds plaster and slated at back, workshops and sheds in front of House, and one at back, cowshed stone and tiled with yard let off to Edward Chester, three lath and plaster cottages and shop towards North Street.’ Joseph Arnold (the younger) had acquired the property on the death of his father Joseph (the elder). Joseph Arnold the Younger had at the Michaelmas Hall (September 30th) of 1819 acquired his freedom: ‘Joseph Arnold the Younger of the Borough aforesaid, Labourer, because he was born in the said Borough at the time of his birth his father, Joseph Arnold being a Free Burgess, thereof is admitted to scott and lott and sworn.’ Joseph Arnold the Elder, a labourer, was a freeman of the borough, which he had bought for four pounds at the Michaelmas Hall (October 9th) of 1788. He voted for the Burghley candidates at the general election of 1809. Through the period 1806 to 1830 the Arnolds (father and son) are entered in the Court Roll for a property that is described as being a ‘House, Garden, Cowhouse and Hovel’. In 1810 the fine was reduced to 15/-; it was raised to 17/6 for the years 1829 and 1830, and from 1831 onwards it was reduced to 10/-. These changes in the fines were not necessarily due to alterations to the structure of the building. In 1805 there was a small change as the description mentions two gardens. In 1804 Joseph Arnold the Elder was fined One Guinea for having ‘an house, Building, Garden and Yard enlarged ... contrary to Law and the Custom of this Manor’. Manorial Court records do not survive for 1792 to 1803 and therefore we have to look further back; they however survive from 1748 to 1791. In 1790 and 1791 Joseph Arnold (the Elder) was fined 1/- ‘because he hath laid or caused to be laid one Dunghill upon the waste ground in the Manor contrary to the custom thereof’. It is not possible to locate this site precisely. There are no earlier mentions of the Arnold family in the Court Rolls and Joseph was not fined for any other encroachments on the Waste. Sizeable and well-constructed buildings could spring from such small walled enclosures and similar illegal encroachments. It is therefore suggested that the building that became the Dolphin Inn and remains standing today must have originated from a building constructed between 1792 and 1803. I hope that this brief paper has illustrated how the Manorial Court Rolls, as a source of information for local historians, fill a gap in our knowledge of early 19th century Stamford and add a missing building to the RCHM list of pre-1850s structures in the town. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Essendine to Ryhall Single Railway Ticket Dated March 28th 1959 Submitted by Chris Hunt. Right up to the closure of the Stamford to Essendine Railway line in 1959 the station at Essendine was still using pre Nationalisation tickets, in this example a pre-war L.N.E.R. ticket. A printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The day World War Two was declared - September 3rd 1939 Not everybody was listening to the radio on the morning of September 3rd 1939 when Neville Chamberlain announced the declaration of war to the British public. It was a Sunday and in St Martin’s Church the 11.00am service was being taken by the Reverend Cox. In the middle of the service an elderly man rushed into the church and whispered to the Vicar what he had just heard on the radio. The Rev. Cox informed the congregation from the pulpit that a state of war now existed between Britain and Germany. He then pronounced the Benediction and ended the service. Source. Recollection from 1939. A printed copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Blackstone Engine Plate BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Blackstone Engine Plate, No.100717, Carters Patent The first factory on Blackstone’s new Ryhall Road ten-acre site was completed in 1887. The firm of Blackstone and Company Limited was formed in 1889 and traded under this title until the mid-1930s. The future was seen as being in oil engines and so in 1896 the company acquired the sole use of the Carter Brothers patents along with oil engine patterns, castings, parts and fittings. The brothers, Frank and Evershed, were employed by the company and received a royalty of ten shillings per horse-power on each engine that left the factory that used their patents, with a minimum payment of fifteen shillings per engine. They continued to innovate the design of engines into the early 1930s. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

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

< Back Eat, Drink and Be Merry – the 1831 Stamford Election John S. Hartley It is almost impossible to provide precise modern equivalents of prices in this earlier period. Nevertheless the Bank of England offers a website which may help a little: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator . The equivalents given below, based on this calculator, are very approximate therefore, and give only a rough guide to the buying power of the pound for goods and services purchased in the UK. However precise or not the figures may be, they provide some sort of basis for comparison between sums of money mentioned in this article. Please note that I have made no attempt to impose apostrophes on the names of these establishments where they should (or might) have been used – the nineteenth century generally did not worry – and I do not! Whether the Blacksmiths Arms belonged to one or many is of no matter here – immaterial, equally, is whether the Arms refer to a heraldic achievement or the hairy arms of a working man! A few years ago, a large number of papers relating to the Stamford election of 1831 appeared, piecemeal, for sale on eBay. While deploring the splitting an archive into individual items, and “cherry-picking” those of apparent greatest interest - this article tries to make the best of a bad job! Among the many items on sale were a few invoices, presented to Charles Tennyson and his supporters by landlords of the public houses where voters had enjoyed his hospitality around the time he became MP for Stamford in May 1831. Individually scarcely more than curiosities, these invoices are a reminder of a time when Britain was in turmoil as those long-used to ruling the country, privileged by birth, wealth and connections, tried to keep a close control of Parliament for the continuing benefit of themselves, their families and their friends. Many of these families, absolutely certain that they alone knew what was best for the country, regarded their reforming opponents with distaste and they were both unwilling and unable to trust them; they regarded their own rule, over past years and recently, as benevolent and far above any self-interest their opponents believed they saw. Even the radical 11th duke of Norfolk who succeeded to the title in 1786 and died in 1815, political friend of Charles James Fox and an early supporter of reform, looked to influence voters in places as far apart as Horsham, Gloucester and Carlisle by his ‘borough-mongering’. Whatever their political leanings, many substantial landowners believed that they were entitled, even called, to use their resources to support candidates to maintain their own interests in Parliament. Foremost amongst such families were the Cecils, no longer just Earls of Exeter but members of the Marquessate since 1801. Their home, Burghley House, lay just outside the borough of Stamford, south of the river Welland, and in another county. They were by far the largest property owners in the town. There were others, however: significant numbers of charities in the town owed their income to the property with which they had been originally endowed. By the start of the nineteenth century many of these charities were controlled by the town council, itself also a considerable property owner and sympathetic – many would have said sycophantic, as some still do, - to the Cecil interest. The councillors themselves, many benefiting directly from Cecil patronage, largely supported the Exeter interest. Probably the most important of the charities under the control of the members of the town council was the town’s Grammar School, endowed at its foundation in the 1530s by William Radcliffe, mayor and leading citizen. This endowment had been strengthened with monastic and chantry property in the next decade. By the later 18th century the earls of Exeter had a positive policy of taking out long, frequently building, leases on both residential and commercial premises at very low rents – again, as many would have said, in collusion with the councillors [1] . In 1809 the annual income of the school from its endowment was about £360 (2024 – perhaps as much as £24,500 [2] ) of which the Exeter estate paid nearly one third for the properties it rented. Its hold on the electorate of the town was strengthened further as it sublet all these leased properties. The Horseshoe , at the heart of the town in Red Lion Square was among a number of licensed premises sub-let in this way. It was one of the eleven public houses (with a further two unidentified establishments) whose invoices, presented to Tennyson for April and May 1831, have recently appeared on eBay [3] . Unlike the many other so-called ‘pocket’ boroughs, Stamford had a large electorate. Voters qualified by paying scot and lot – a parochial tax equated, by the nineteenth century, with the poor rate assessment. On the death of George IV, the former Prince Regent, in 1830 and the accession of William IV, a general election became necessary. Charles Tennyson, (now largely remembered as uncle of the poet) of Bayons Manor at Tealby [4] , some three miles to the east of Market Rasen in the north of Lincolnshire, was invited to stand as Stamford’s reforming candidate [5] . In a lively election he failed to capture either of the two Stamford borough seats. Bayons Manor in 1820, before Charles Tennyson altered it extensively. Lord Thomas Cecil and Col Thomas Chaplin, the Exeter candidates, were elected, but Tennyson was a mere 21 votes behind Chaplin. In 1830 as many as 669 had been entitled to vote; estimates for the 1831 election suggest there were between 770 and 898 legitimate electors. No doubt the overall numbers had been increased by the efforts of Tennyson’s supporting committee – the Blue Committee – as well as the Exeter party - the Red Interest – both anxious to ensure that all qualified were correctly registered as electors. In 1797 it had been observed that Stamford, “always submits the nomination of its members to the Earl of Exeter,” suggesting the long-standing subservience to the family since the last fully contested election in 1734. An election in 1809 had turned out to be something of a farce [6] . It was this domination that Tennyson was looking to overthrow both in 1830 and 1831 [7] . The various means of promoting candidates and eliciting votes sound to modern ears like corruption – as most were, by any standard. Ready cash, food and drink, and support for the electors’ businesses, employment, housing and all kinds of pensions, would bring their reward at election time; fear was, perhaps, the most powerful weapon of all. The Marquess had himself carelessly helped his opponents after the 1830 election by personally coming into the town to help enforce the eviction of those of his tenants who had failed to support both his candidates – whether they had “plumped” – i.e. cast a single vote for Tennyson - or cautiously split their two votes between the Red and Blue candidates. Whether successful in one election or not, many candidates “nursed” their voters until the next time [8] . A consequence of the 1830 election in Stamford was that the supporters of reform presented a petition to the House of Commons claiming interference by the Marquess of Exeter in promoting his candidates during the 1830 election. Their claim failed, “through an omission in a matter of form” and the House, “refused to allow further opportunity for complying” [9] . At this time the countryside around Stamford was in turmoil, as was much of southern England. Agricultural machines were broken, ricks and barns were burned. Similar acts took place, or were threatened, with the aim of seeking redress for low agricultural wages and poor conditions and exploitation by landlords. A particular complaint was over the introduction of threshing machinery. These so-called “Swing” riots had started in August 1830 and continued into 1831. Locally the special constabulary and yeomanry were mobilised, and Sir John Trollope of Casewick in Uffington led a “huge party of mounted men from Stamford into Huntingdonshire.” A straw stack was set alight at Easton-on-the-Hill; at Warmington a machine was destroyed by a riotous assembly. Three rioters were arrested and taken to Oundle where they were successfully held overnight in spite of “the mob who demolished the outer gates of the bridewell-yard and partly stripped the roof of the building……” Such was the political climate leading up to the second of the elections at the start of the 1830s [10] . On the 6th May 1831, after Col Chaplin, once more the second Burghley candidate, had failed by 54 votes to gain the second Stamford seat in House of Commons, the Mercury commented on the breaking of “the long-established influence of the Marquess of Exeter, aided ….... on the present occasion by an immense expenditure of money (said to be not less than £14,000) ….... and by pugilists …… and hired labourers …….”. If such an accusation were accurate – and there seems to be considerable evidence to support it – the period of the election was what the Mercury called later in the same article, “a season of unusual excitement.” Certainly, an outlay approaching a million pounds in a failed attempt to block a rival political interest would indeed seem “unusual”. Unsurprisingly, there were great celebrations in Stamford after Tennyson had successfully contested that second borough seat despite the efforts of the Marquess of Exeter. Subsequently, bills for entertainment at the end of April and much of May were presented to Tennyson by landlords of at least eleven named public houses together with a further two invoices from individuals, perhaps acting on behalf of their landlords. It has been thought interesting, and perhaps worthwhile to append transcripts of all these bills at the end of this article. Together they illustrate something of the celebrations that occurred all over the borough itself, as well as spreading far wider. The invoices were largely addressed to Charles Tennyson Esq, some adding the courtesy of MP after his name; uniquely, John Sharpe Blades addressed his invoice to the ‘Blue Committee’, the colour of reform in Stamford. The invoice from the Salutation , though made out to Tennyson was endorsed with “Mr Beasly,” the name of the Chairman of his election committee which had agreed to meet all the Blue election expenses. There may very well have been other invoices, possibly from other establishments – the bill from the Salutation includes an unpaid earlier invoice dated 6th May, for £18-10-0, presumably mainly for hospitality provided up to that date. Most call for payment to the named landlord making it easy to trace the name of the inn or public house which had provided entertainment for voters and their friends who supported the cause of reform. The bill for the Glaziers Arms carries no landlord’s name but other sources show it was Edward Clipsham, a plumber (and presumably, glazier) who followed his trade while his two maiden sisters actually ran the public house which he had inherited from his mother in 1797. A note, in another hand at the foot of Clipsham’s bill, reads “This ac[coun]t I believe was not obtained by Mr Tennysons servant.” It was initialled, probably by a member of Tennyson’s election committee, suggesting that most of the invoices were systematically gathered for settlement. Two invoices were presented by named individuals, Robert Blake and John Sharpe Blades; they carry no indication of where or for whom they worked, and their names have not been found in any contemporary lists. Blake and Blades did not vote in any of the three elections at the start of the 1830s, suggesting that they did not pay the poor rate and were not property owners (in Stamford, at any rate), and so had no vote there. The landlords of the Black Horse , Horse and Jockey , Glaziers Arms , Chequers, Nags Head , Red Lion, Salutation and Stamford Arms, eight in total, voted exclusively for Tennyson at the 1831 election. In the jargon of the time they had “plumped” for Tennyson, choosing to use just one of their votes for him, and not using the other. Young at The Horseshoe and Abbot at the Roebuck , chose to use both their votes in 1831, splitting their support between Tennyson and Lord Thomas Cecil. It is not surprising therefore to find that all hosted celebrations at their premises at Tennyson’s success at his backers’ expense. Previously, in 1830, Preston of the Horse and Jockey and Saul of the Red Lion , had been rather more cautious and split their votes between the Burghley interest and the reformers but in the later 1832 election they each plumped for Arthur Gregory who had replaced Tennyson as the reforming candidate [11] . Abbott split his votes in both 1830 and 1831 though he also plumped for Gregory in 1832. Young of The Horseshoe , a tenant of the Marquess, had cast both his votes for the Burghley candidates in 1830 and, as keen reformers might have said, ‘prevaricated’ in 1831, returning to the Burghley fold in 1832. Surprisingly John Dickinson of the Stamford Arms and a tenant of a Snowden’s Hospital property administered by the town council, plumped for Tennyson in 1830 and 1831, splitting his votes between Cecil and Gregory in 1832. Clipsham and Saul plumped in all three years for the reforming candidate. And finally, Woodward, whose reforming credentials are perhaps strongest, since the Salutation was a home for independents does not appear to have registered a vote in 1832, having supported Tennyson in the previous two elections. The inn or public house is, according to tradition, the place where freedom to express an opinion is encouraged as people try out their views on their fellows – a place of good fellowship and lively discussion. However, the three elections in Stamford in the early 1830s suggest otherwise. In the urban setting, it would appear, people preferred to gather where they might meet people of similar opinion. The Salutation was a stronghold of members of the original Oddfellows Society in the town. It was also the meeting place of the Royal Society of United Brethren – both friendly societies, each supported by, and supporting, independently-minded tradesmen, craftsmen and townsmen. By contrast, properties in Red Lion Square, including the Horseshoe , had recently been rebuilt by their owner, the Marquess of Exeter. This is the background which makes John Young’s voting pattern rather more understandable – by all reports some Burghley tenants were ejected from their homes after the 1830 election, having failed to vote for Exeter candidates. Young took a considerable risk in splitting his vote in 1831 [12] . In 1833 a rival Oddfellows Society was established in the town: the Loyal Finch Independent Lodge of Oddfellows No 5 , based at Young’s establishment, the Horseshoe . It was named after the second Exeter candidate, successful in the 1832 election, George Finch of Burley on the Hill, near Oakham. On Monday 25th April 1831 both parties had begun their canvass “with a degree of energy unprecedented in Stamford. Some conflicts have occurred on …… the streets, but happily nothing serious has resulted from them.” [13] The next day no less than three letters were sent from the Blue Committee Room in Standwell’s Hotel to Tennyson. Two, signed by both Cecil and Chaplin, made “strong and urgent request” to “forbid the use of Bludgeons.” But the third, from Cecil alone, was far more carefully measured and antagonistic and personal in tone: “I would not wish to charge you with having made a statement wilfully untrue, but ..… you are perfectly mistaken in the idea you appear to entertain ….” And so on, leading ultimately to a challenge which resulted in a duel on Wormwood Scrubs after the election [14] . While the duel broke the law, honour was satisfied, both parties apologised, shook hands and went to a local police station where, on learning that all had been patched up, no charges were brought forward. However, returning to the Election campaign itself, a letter sent from Stamford by Tennyson’s son, George, indicates that the Reds were importing prize fighters and other disreputable characters: “The Marquis of Exeter has engaged a number of prize fighters to break the heads of the Blues. The day before yesterday [ie the Tuesday that the three letters were written by the Cecil and Chaplin] several came down – Oliver, Barker, Whiteheaded Bob, ….. [more]… of these ruffians are despatched from Town today.” [15] On April 28th, during the canvass, the Nags Head provided four gallons of ale for which Tennyson was later billed. The ale was for the musicians who probably formed the band which the Mercury reported met Sir William Ingleby and Mr Pelham, the Lincolnshire reforming candidates, and escorted them through Stamford with blue flags. An extra 1½ gallons, as well as tobacco, were provided at the Red Lion on 2nd May – presumably these musicians paraded with Tennyson supporters throughout the canvass and the poll. A day later Walford at the Nags Head invoiced Tennyson for providing “Post Boys and [Sedan] Chairmen” with some 20 pints of ale. It would seem likely that they had been employed by the “Blue Committee” carrying messages and voters to the Poll and perhaps also the two bottles of sherry and one bottle of port sent to the hustings from the Red Lion ! The Committee would have met their basic charges while also giving them authority to claim a quantity of ale, the amount probably already agreed, at the Nags Head [16] . Voting took place in public, over several days, starting on Saturday 30th April, resuming on Monday 2nd May and ending on Tuesday 3rd May. Stamford printers, following common practice, issued handbills showing the state of the poll at the close of each day’s voting, enabling those interested to keep a close check on how each candidate was doing. When all was over and settled one or more copies of the Poll Book were published showing the results with a list of how each elector had voted [17] . Thus landlords, their agents and anyone else interested could check who each voter (and especially their tenants) had supported. After Tennyson’s success in 1831 large numbers gave themselves over to rejoicing at the final “triumph of Reform” in Stamford. There were various celebrations round the town in “friendly” public houses. The evening chosen for these rejoicings was Tuesday, 17th May. Tennyson had been charged for many gallons of ale during and immediately after the election itself as the missing invoice for £18-10-0, presented on the 6th May by the Salutation , probably indicates. No doubt this substantial sum (£1,550+) had been spent providing entertainment and encouragement to voters during the election itself as well as celebration on some scale, immediately afterwards; all the surviving invoices indicate the provision of considerable quantities of ale – about 250 gallons (or 2,000 pints – 1,135 litres!) - supplied before the 17th May. Organised celebrations in the public houses of the town took place that Tuesday evening: in all more than 187 dinners were served costing Tennyson 2s 6d each then and now about £10.00, perhaps. With the food came more than 175 bowls of punch, each costing double the price of a meal. It is not clear what went into the punch, but the overall price suggests both a potent mixture and a large quantity. In addition, a wide range of spirits was provided – brandy at eight shillings a bottle, rum six shillings and gin four shillings and sixpence - £40, £30 and £22.50 respectively. Sherry, port, and unspecified wines all were to be paid for. One must assume that a rather larger number than just those 187 diners enjoyed Tennyson’s hospitality. During the celebrations on the 17th and over the next ten days a further 350 gallons (2,800 pints, nearly 1,600 litres) of ale were also charged to the Tennyson account! However different social levels demanded different entertainments. A week after the parties for which we have invoices at the pubs there was a dinner and ball celebrating the success of reform candidates in Stamford and elsewhere in Lincolnshire. An advertisement in the Stamford Mercury of 20th May announced a “spacious Booth beautifully fitted up for the occasion”, specially erected in Broad Street where a dinner was to be held. Tickets for this were priced at ten shillings a head [18] . This seems a realistic amount for a celebration dinner including dessert and a bottle of wine – which was included with the ticket. Moreover, it was “hoped that all Gentlemen attending the Dinner will honor Mr. Tennyson by accepting Tickets for the Ball .” So consecutive evenings out, Tuesday and Wednesday 24th and 25th May, for the price of one, to celebrate (and hopefully cement) Stamford’s substantial backing for the reform of Parliament. “Gentlemen intending to dine will please to signify their intention to Mr Hortor, at the Bar of the Tennyson's Arms and George and Angel Hotel , Stamford ….” While “Gentlemen” might have been able to afford the tickets for the grand Dinner and Ball at the booth built in Broad Street, it is quite clear that many of Tennyson’s Stamford supporters could not possibly have afforded a ticket – and probably would not have felt comfortable attending a formal dinner and subsequent ball. The George and Angel had served as Tennyson’s election headquarters in the weeks before the poll – facing straight down St Mary’s Hill, it overlooked the hustings outside the Town Hall where voters declared, for all to hear, for whom they were casting their votes. At present there is no evidence that Hortor presented any invoices to Tennyson who had first been attracted to Stamford at short notice in 1830 by the promise that his election costs would be met by the Committee of supporters. The name of the George and Angel , one of the oldest inns in Stamford, was well known [19] ; the addition of Tennyson’s name and coat of arms took place well before the second election, appearing in print in an advertisement in the Mercury in early March 1831 [20] . Almost next door to the George and Angel , and awkwardly placed behind St Mary’s Church, stood the recently built Stamford Hotel on the site of the former Bull Inn . Sir Gerard Noel of nearby Exton Hall in Rutland had spent a reported £43,000 building this [21] and hoped it would be a centre of resistance to the Burghley influence on voters in Stamford, but his defeat in the 1812 election, after such great expense left his hopes unfulfilled. Known as Standwell’s Hotel after its lessee in 1825, it had become the headquarters in the 1830s of the Burghley candidates – an ironic reversal of fortune and a warning which cannot have been lost on the citizens of Stamford [22] . Arrangements for the entertainment at the “Booth” were planned. On the 23rd May, Robert Saul supplied 12 pints of ale for the “Mutitioners [sic – presumably ‘musicians’ was intended] at Orchestra,” Clearly, an orchestra had been gathered and were preparing for the ball. The Stamford Mercury of the 27th May reports on both dinner and ball. Attending were not only all the newly elected reforming MPs for Lincolnshire and Rutland, Sir William Ingilby and Sir Gerard Noel, but “General Johnson [23] , Major Handley [24] and numerous parties of gentlemen from Boston, Spalding, Holbeach, Deeping, Bourn and other towns of this and the neighbouring counties.” The Mercury report makes it clear that the dinner itself was a male only occasion: “…. The gentlemen were honoured after dinner with the presence of Lady Tennyson and her daughters, Lady Ingilby and a large party of ladies of the town and neighbourhood.” For them “accommodation had been provided that they might hear the speeches.” The Mercury offers no indication of the content, quality or reception of the speeches, simply stating, “The day’s proceedings, it may be truly said, passed off with the most admirable effect.” The ball “for which so ardent anticipation had been felt by an immense class of individuals” took place following evening. Again, the marquee in Broad Street – always referred to as a “booth” – 130 feet by 40 feet (40m x 12m) was used, though the number attending was far greater than for the dinner. To provide the additional accommodation the ”spacious portico of the market” [25] was fitted up for dancing; the “numerous intervening shambles of the butchery, each of which was converted into a receptacle for refreshments, …… was presided over by ladies of a committee who kindly devoted themselves to the service.” Flowers and evergreen shrubs were everywhere, and the lighting was “beautifully” done with “variegated light formed into the most magnificent devices” in the booth. “Order and harmony” reigned throughout the evening and during a break in the dancing, Tennyson was presented with a silver vase, costing 100 guineas (today perhaps £9,000) which his supporters had collected to commemorate his success. Inevitably speeches followed. Most remarkable about the Mercury account of the ball are the words “the immense number of five thousand persons [26] were entertained in this magic scene…………..” Scarcely less remarkable is the way this sentence continues, “between eight o’clock on Wednesday evening and seven o’clock on the following morning.” Some celebration! The supporters of the Red party had their own celebration – and the Mercury duly recorded this also. They reported that on Tuesday 31st May supporters were “entertained with dinner at 30 of the inns and public houses of Stamford. About 700 persons partook of this festivity, which is estimated to have cost about £1 a man, ” [my italics!] . According to the Poll Book just 382 voters had cast at least one of their votes for the Exeter candidates. So it would appear that this celebration, like Tennyson’s, was attended by many who were not qualified to vote in the Stamford constituency. The Mercury’s report is short and betrays the paper’s political bias, reflecting its owner’s bias, in favour of reform; the comment on the cost of the Red celebration – perhaps £60,000 today – was a reminder to its readers of those reports a month earlier about how the Cecils had tried to manage the electors of the borough. Tennyson’s Dinner and Ball provided opportunities for the public houses in Broad Street to make further profit out of his success. On the night of the Ball the Salutation supplied “Brandy for [the] Booth” as well as having a “man employed in Making the Tea”, and a coal porter. Afterwards, having perhaps been responsible for fitting out the large marquee used for the dinner and ball, Saul claimed for “Things not returned from the Booth: 1 chair, 9 mugs, 1 quart jug and one half pint pewter” valuing the items at the equivalent of about £40 today. At the Red Lion there were losses of glasses and mugs over the election period to a similar amount. The Nags Head claimed from Tennyson the cost of providing “the lamp trimmers Ale &c” while the illuminations were kept bright. They also provided “tin cans, taps and pail,” presumably for the barrels of ale brought to the marquee. An unspecified number of waiters tried to ensure everything ran smoothly at the Nags Head . Nevertheless, unsurprisingly, amid all the celebrations accidents occurred. The breakages of glass at the Nags Head, Red Lion and Salutation cost the equivalent of at least £50 today. All the effort and expense, revealed in these bills, together with the extreme celebrations in the Booth made no direct difference whatsoever to Stamford in the short term. Tennyson and his fellow MP reformers brought the bill proposing reform of the electoral system to Parliament. Accepted by the Commons but rejected by the House of Lords – largely the people who benefited most from the existing franchise – widespread riots ensued; Bristol, Nottingham and Derby, among many other places, suffered severely. Faced with chaos, and the royal threat of the creation of enough peers to pass a Reform Bill, the Lords capitulated and the Reform Act received royal assent in the June of 1832. Nationally, this enlarged the franchise, particularly in the ‘new’ industrial towns of the North and, importantly, showed the way political change might be achieved. In Stamford the borough franchise was extended, and the constituency enlarged to include properties south of the Welland. Many inhabitants of St Martin’s became new electors in this enlarged Stamford constituency. The Exeter interest, owning the majority of the newly enfranchised properties in St Martin’s, was strengthened overwhelmingly as a result. Before the 1832 election, when the new electoral register was to be used, Tennyson left Stamford to take the far safer seat of Lambeth which he held for the next twenty years. Many of his supporters were upset, unsurprisingly, believing he had let them down. It was another 40 years, until the arrival of the secret ballot in 1872, that it became possible for Stamford electors to vote freely, without any fear of the consequences. Bayons Manor after it had been enlarged by Charles Tennyson [1] Blore’s Stanford Charities published in 1813 was a critical investigation into management of the so-called municipal charities. It anticipates many of the findings of the Charity Commissioners presented to Parliament in 1837, which was summarised in a lengthy Appendix by George Burton, Chronology of Stamford , Stamford, 1846. [2] See introduction, above. [3] See Appendix for a transcription of these invoices [4] In an ‘ongoing fit of medievalism’ in 1835, Tennyson renamed his inherited home, Bacons , as the far grander Bayons Manor – hopefully revealing a connection with Bayeaux. He also tacked “d’Eyncourt” to his surname. [5] Tennyson was already known as a reformer – he had been a MP for Grimsby from 1818-26 and subsequently Bletchingdon in Surrey until 1831. See History of Parliament , relevant entries [6] It was held just a fortnight after the duke of Ancaster had died with the result that Gen. Bertie, one of the two Stamford MPs and a friend of the Burghley interest, was raised to the peerage as the Earl of Lindsey. As a member of the House of Lords, he could no longer represent Stamford in the Commons, so a new MP was required. A rank outsider, said to have been a traveller through the town, polled nearly one third of the total votes. [7] See, The House of Commons, 1820–1832, History of Parliament Trust, ed. D. R. Fisher, Vol 3 sub Stamford. Also, History of the Original Constitution of Parliaments, T.H.B. Oldfield, London 1797, p.428. [8] In Stamford the Town Council Minute Book as far back as 1704 had recorded that the two most recent mayors had each received £100, perhaps equivalent to £20,000 today, from Mr Cecil and Mr Bertie, “to be distributed among the voaters of this town”. And this may possibly have been regarded as an annual ‘donation’! [9] Stamford Mercury 3 Dec 1830 [10] See the article, The Agricultural Labourers' Standard of Living in Lincolnshire, 1790-1840: Social Protest and Public Order, by T.L. Richardson in Agricultural History Review, 4I , x, pp 1-19 for a much fuller discussion of the local background to the 1831 election. [11] See elsewhere on this site, “Anonymous Abuse - 1830s style” about Tennyson’s decision not to stand for Stamford again in the 1832 election. [12] In 1847, after a debate about interference in the election in Stamford in that year, the House of Commons passed a motion (by one vote – 178 to 177!) to appoint a Select Committee to “inquire into the allegations ……. complaining of the interference of the Marquess of Exeter,” in the 1847 “and former elections.” The Select Committee Report on the Stamford Election of 1847 , (Parliamentary Papers, HC 532, 1847-1848, v.14) is highly critical of the tactics used by the Marquess and his agents, not least the ejection of tenants as a result of their not voting for their landlord’s candidates. [13] Stamford Mercury , Friday 29th April 1831, p.3 col.1 [14] The three letters are to be found in Lincolnshire Archives, 2Td’EH26/1, 2 & 4. Reports of the duel are to be found in the Stamford Mercury 23 June 1831, and many national newspapers, as well as local papers throughout the country. Drakard’s Stamford News , as might be expected from such a radical source, carries in great detail the names and background of many of the Special Constables brought in by the Exeter family, as well as full details of the origins of the duel – DSN 24 June 1831. [15] Lincolnshire Archives Td’E H/109/32. Drakard News carries a list of these “ruffians” (many former policemen) DSN 24 June 1831 [16] It is important to remember that messages had to be carried, as did people, and the carriers formed an important part of the structure of any pre-twentieth century community. [17] Sometimes, usually when a poll was very close, the “State of the Parties” was issued more frequently than daily. Poll books, often contain a running summary of daily happenings, giving the opportunity for each side subsequently to interpret events as they saw fit. [18] 10 shillings was half of one pound, so a modern equivalent might be about £50. [19] A property in St Mary’s parish called the Angel is recorded from the early 14th century (People & Property in Medieval Stamford No.758.28) and it appears to have been an inn by the late 15th. Early in the Georgian period the name was expanded, first to the Angel and George and then to the George and Angel . [20] On 11 March 1831 a new name, Tennyson’s Arms, replaced George and Angel . A month earlier still, on 10 February, William and Mary Everard had named their son Charles Tennyson at his baptism! (Stamford St John - Registers). [21] Chronology of Stamford , George Burton (Stamford & London 1846) p.194 – at least £4 million today [22] The riots occasioned by the close proximity of the two election headquarters form yet another strand to the story of the Stamford elections of the 1830s. Ultimately the ratepayers of the town had to make good the costs of the damage to the George and Angel , avoiding a law suit threatened by Hortor: LAO Stamford St Michael’s Vestry Book 20 June 1833. [23] William Augustus Johnson, of Witham on the Hill was a former MP for Boston, and later for Oldham, and a leading figure in South Lincolnshire after 1815. [24] Henry Handley, of Sleaford was MP for the Southern Division of Lincolnshire 1832-1841 [25] Now the Town Library, originally built to accommodate the Butchers’ shambles. [26] Italics in original report. In 1831 Stamford’s population was 5,837 according to the census of that year. There is an appendix to this article which can be viewed by clicking the link below. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Melancholy Walk WHAT’S IN A NAME? By Eugene Perrett Step back in time with as we explore the intriguing origins of a stunning locale. The 1797 Burghley map first mentions what we now know as Melancholy Walk on the Bank, a name that evokes a sense of mystery and nostalgia. Picture the fog sweeping across the meadows, creating an atmosphere that felt both haunting and inhospitable, far from the warmth of the town’s protective walls. It’s easy to imagine the somber beauty that would have characterized this area—dark, misty, and inviting contemplation. Join us to uncover the stories of such evocative places, as we delve deeper into Stamford's rich history. There is no definitive answer to why the name was chosen, but these are two theories: 1) The Executioner’s Route: The path was the final route taken by prisoners being led from the town to the gallows outside the town’s walls. The name captures the ‘melancholy’ state of the condemned individual on their way to execution. The problem with this theory is that the gallows were situated up on Tinwell Road, so this would have been rather a long diversion. Unless, of course, it was just a clever convict who wanted to live a little bit longer… ‘Dark, misty, uninviting, going nowhere’ 2) Melancholic Contemplation: The path goes below the ruins of the Austinian monastery and monks were renowned for being contemplative. In the Middle Ages, ‘melancholy’ was often referred to as the ‘monk’s disease’. And Robert Burton’s bestseller ‘The Anatomy of Melancholy’, first published in 1621, would have been at the height of its popularity when the current millstream was built (and presumably the path alongside it) in the 1630s. Nature, for Burton, was key for alleviating symptoms of melancholy. I’ll let you decide which of the above you prefer! Personally, for me it’s the second theory. A print copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back V Bomber Crash at Barnack Chris Hunt 2017 HANDLEY PAGE VICTOR B.2 BOMBER No XM714 On the night of March 20th 1963 a Handley Page Victor B.2 Bomber No XM714 of 100 Squadron took off from Wittering on a training flight. It crashed east north-east of Wittering in the Parish of Barnack and of the crew of six only one person ejected and survived. The plane was a write off. The plane stalled after take-off and spun into the ground. A fire warning was indicated for the No.2 engine, this occurred at about 800 feet. During the fire drill the airspeed was allowed to drop and the aircraft began to judder violently. It then flipped over, entered a spin at between 4,000 and 5,000 feet and crashed. The co-pilot ejected and survived with compression fractures but the rest of the crew were killed. The fire warning was found to be false. The co- pilot – Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson remained in the RAF and retired in 1993 with the rank of Air Chief Marshall. There were two squadrons of Victor B.2 Bombers at Wittering during the 1960’s. 100 Squadron from May 1962 to September 1968 and 139 (Jamaica) Squadron from February 1962 to December 1968, they were both part of the Quick Reaction Alert force of the RAF. Two nuclear armed aircraft were permanently on 15 minutes readiness to take off. They were parked within 300 ft of the westerly runway threshold and in times of higher tension, four bombers could be stationed beside the runway. If the aircraft were manned they could all be airborne within 30 seconds, with an incoming missile warning from RAF Fylingdales of only four minutes before impact this ensured if the country came under attack, the bombers would be scrambled and be able to retaliate. Each plane carried an Avro Blue Steel Missile, this was a British air-launched, rocket- propelled thermonuclear stand-off missile and was the primary British nuclear deterrent weapon until the introduction of the Polaris missile armed nuclear submarine fleet. Basically. the missile was a pilotless, winged aircraft. It was powered by a rocket engine, burning a combination of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene. Fuelling the missile before launch took nearly half an hour, and was quite hazardous. On launch the rocket engine's first chamber would power the missile along a predetermined course at around Mach 1.5 and then once close to the target, the second chamber of the engine would accelerate the missile to Mach 3. Over the target the engine would cut out and the missile would free-fall before detonating its 1.1 megaton warhead as an air burst weapon. The crash occurred about 100 yards north of the Bainton Road reaching almost to the village cemetery. The area was soon cordoned off with RAF Police and crash teams from Wittering; civilian police were also on hand. Fire brigades from Stamford and Peterborough also attended the scene. It was reported in the press that the RAF armourers on hand were there to deal with Very lights. Trees were set on fire and for a time the whole village was covered in a black cloud as a result of the burning fuel. Local residents were interviewed by the Stamford Mercury reporters who spoke of debris from the crash as near as fifty yards to Station Farm. The cockpit canopy landed the far side of Pond Farm falling through the roof of a stone outbuilding and No 10 Bainton Road was in direct line with the crash. A Barnack villager reported that the sound the plane was different to normal and was gliding in when it hit the ground. To some there was a renewed fear of further accidents and the continuation of night flying did nothing to quell those fears. At the inquest which was held in Peterborough on May 16th 1963 the sole surviving airman (Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson) informed the inquest jury that No 2 Engine Warning light came on at about 800 feet and they commenced the normal fire drill. They could not see the engine in question so the only indication of the fire was the warning light. The Base was informed of the incident and the crew were warned to check their parachutes. At this stage the aircraft suffered severe buffeting, ‘an intense vibration caused by aero-dynamic reasons or by mechanical failure in the engine’. Shortly after this the nose of the plane reared up and it went into a spin. The Captain gave the order ‘Get Out, Get Out’ and the Flight Lieutenant ejected at about 2,000 feet, before leaving the plane he heard someone at the rear say I can’t move. The design of the plane meant that although the pilot and co-pilot had ejector seats the rest of the crew had to bail out. This was not an easy procedure due to the restrictive nature of the interior of the plane and the danger of being caught by an engine when bailing out. A witness on the ground stated that there was no fire on board the plane prior to the crash. Three of the deceased were buried with full military honours in Wittering Cemetery. Flight Lieutenant Jackson’s stated at the inquest that:- “I think the captain very courageously stayed at the controls when he could have used his ejector seat, because of the knowledge that the rest of the crew could not get out.” The question of course is whether on the night of the accident the plane was carrying a Blue Steel Missile with a nuclear warhead attached? Considering the high status level at the time it was the norm for aircraft in the air to be carrying a weapon. The missile’s warhead was primed in-flight so although in a crash scenario nuclear material could be released into the environment; there was little or no likelihood of a nuclear explosion. Of course it could have really been a training exercise carrying a dummy missile on what was a relatively new plane. The pilot - Flight Lieutenant Alexander Galbraith - heroically stayed with the plane making the ultimate sacrifice and saving numerous lives on the ground and the village of Barnack. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back David Cecil's Will and David Cecil's Wife: Two Notes Professor Alan Rogers 2012 William Cecil, Lord Burghley was obsessed with his family history. He continually sought and obtained information and produced several contradictory pedigrees; so any light that can be thrown on earlier generations of Cecils is valuable. David Cecil of Stamford, his grandfather, Alderman (i.e. mayor) and MP for the town, was a particular concern; for someone had charged Lord Burghley with being the son of an innkeeper (a story which is still repeated). This is not true: the basis for it is that David was given the Tabard in Stamford by John Dyccons glover, councillor and Alderman of Stamford in the 1490s and almost certainly father-in-law of David Cecil, to be used for his (Dyccons’) will. A full biography of David Cecil will be published shortly in Nottingham Medieval Studies (Alan Rogers, ‘The Parliamentary representation of Stamford, 1467-1509’). This note concerns two matters; his will and his wife. David Cecil’s will David Cecil made two wills. One is dated the Conversion of St Paul (25 January) 1535 [i.e. 1535/6] (PRO PROB 11/29 fol 2d-3) and the other (strangely) is dated the Conversion of St Paul 1536 [i.e. 1536/7] (to be found in British Library Cotton iv 29; it has been wrongly indexed as referring to the rector of St Peter’s church, Stamford, which is why it has been missed to date). It seems clear that the Cotton version was a draft and inaccurately dated, for it was the 1535/6 will which was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in March 1541/2, not the will dated 1536/7. There are a small number of differences between the provisions made in the two drafts. The sequence varies, and some items in the draft will are split apart. One clause in the draft is repeated twice in the final version. Two additional clauses relate to an extra payment to St George’s church and to the sale of swans for the benefit of David’s soul. The final will is then slightly longer than the draft will, with 39 clauses instead of 35. The wording of each clause varies from time to time. Richard Cecil remains sole executor to both; in the draft will, he is subject to the supervision of John Haryngton of Exton but this is not stated in the final will. The witnesses are very different. WILL OF DAVID CECIL January 1535/6 PRO Version In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversawn off seynt Paule Anno dni millesimo quingentesimo tricesimo quinto I David Cyssell of Stamford in the Countie of Lyncoln Esquier being of good and perfytt Remembrance in mynd, also well and perfitly deliberat make my testament and last Wyll in this maner and fourme following First I bequith my soule to almightie god and to our blessid lady seynt mary mother of mercy, and to all the glorious company of hevyn, and my body to be buryed in the parishe churche of seynt George of Stamford aforeseyd. Item I give to the high aulter of seynt George of Stamford ijs. Item to our ladyes works of lyncoln xijd. Item I will that my wyfe shall have all the plate that was hers before that I maryed her and also all other goodes of household that was hers at oure mariage. Also I give to my seyd wyffe Twenty ky[n]e and a bulle of myn owne goods in recompence of suche catell as she brought to me. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two horses and two mares. Item I give to my seyd wife Thirtie seme of malte and Ten scyme of Wheate and Ten scyme of barley and Threscore shepe, that ys to sey, ffouretie old shepe and Twenty lambes. And also I give to my seyd wyfe Twenty Lodes of wood. I give to my seyd wife two fetherbeds, one in the Nursery and an other in the Closet where she lyeth in. Item I give to my seyd wyff the bed and bedsted with the hengings of silke as yt stonds complete in the gesse Chamber by the strete. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a marke of Swannes markyd with laduls streght up and down the byll and the legges and she to enyoie yt to her and her assignes for ever. Item I give to Richard Cissell my eldest sone two complete fetherbeddes one over the Closett and another over the parlour as they stonde holy. Item I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to David my secounde sone two fetherbeddes complete, one at the steyrhed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fetherbed. Item I give to my seyd wyfe all my londs in Stamford in Nassyngton and els where for the terme of her lyff and after her departing I will that all my seyd londs do remayn to my seyd sone Richard Cissell and to his heires for ever. Item I give to my doughter Joane Twenty pounds sterling in mony or in mony worthe and that to be delyvered to Joane my wyfe being her naturall mother, to be in save custody of her seyd mother for the preferment and promocion of her maryage. Item I give to the fowre ordurs off freyers of Stamford to praye for me vjs viijd to every one of the seyd orders. Item I give to Jone my doughter the one half of household stuff at Dowsby as in brasse, pewter and bedding hangings lynyn and other stuf remayning at Dowsby and all this stuf to be in custodye of Jane my wyf unto the tyme of mariage off Joane my seyd doughter. Item I give to Richard Cyssell my sone all my titill and interest that I have in the Chantre londes that ys gyven for the fynding of a prest to singe for Sir Davyd Phillip in seynt Marys churche in Stamford. Also I give to my seyd/// sone Richard all my tytle and interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Stamford and in all other places the whiche John Dycons left to be song for by a prest in seynt mary churche aforeseyd for his soule and all crysten soules. Item I give to David Cyssell my secounde sone Twenty quarters of barley to be delyvered to hym by myn executour by four and of this side the feast of seynt Marten in Wynter next to folowe the dey of my departing from this lyfe and to be taken out of my Croppe that growith or may growe in Tynwell feelds. Item I will that two of my merke of swannes herebefore not bequeathed be solde by myn executour and the mony takyn for them to be dispoased for my soule. Item I will that all the hangings, tabulls, trestells and formes and other ymplyments in my halle, in my grete parlour and in my galery on the south syde of my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne ther as standers or heirelowms for ever. Item I bequeth to my wife ffyfty quarters of malte. Twenty quartetrs of barley. Ten quarters of wheate and xl lodes of wood. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two cuppes of sylver parcell gilte with covers, and a pece called the horne all gylt. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a pece gilt with the whetesheef in the bottom, the whiche I gaffe her before our mariage. Item I will that she have all her goods off household that were hers at the daye of oure mariage in as good state and repare as they were the same daye. Item I give to my sone Richard my best gowne and the choyse. Item I will that Anthony Vyllers have the secound gowne, my best dublett and my velvet Jackett. Item I wille that David my sone have my blake gowne of clothe lyned with damaske, a dublet of satten stoked, with a Jackett and my grene coate. Item will that Sir William Huddeston sing for my soule and all Crysten soules the one hole yere in the churche of seynt George in Stamford and to have v li for his stypent.fyve pounds sterling. Item I will that ther be given for the helth of my soule that three days xx li, that ys to sey at the daye off my buryall,, at the vijth daye and at the xxx ti daye. Item I give to the high aulter off seynt George for tythes and offerings not perfatly donne vjs viijd. Item I will that my detts be payd of my goods laufully knowen and axed. Item I will that every servaunte of myn household have blak coats. Item I will that Richard Wyer have a fetherbed. Item I ordeyn and make my seyd sone Richard Cissell my sole executour, to dispoase the resydue of my goods above or otherwise not given nor bequeathed for the honor of god and for the helth of my soule after the laudable maner that he can do or devyse. These being wytnes Sir Thomas Wenstare notary, John Bocher and Richard Wyre with many others. Probate at London 16 March 1541 David M. Loades , The Cecils: privilege and power behind the throne, London: The National Archives, 2007, following S T Bindoff , The House of Commons, 1509-1558, vols i-iii, Members, London: Secker and Warburg, 1982 , dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen, it is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1535/6. The will was proved in March 1541/2. COPY OR DRAFT WILL OF DAVID CECIL dated January 1536/7 BL Cotton Ch iv 29 In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversyon off Saynt Paule Anno dni millimo cccccmo tricesimo sexto I Davyd Cyssell off Stannford in the Countie of Lincoln Esquyer being off good and perfytt Remembraunce, In mynd also well and deliberate make my testament and last Wyll in maner and fforme ffoloyng. First I (bese del ) bequeth my soule to almyty god and to oure blessyd lady mother off mercy and to all the gloryouse Company off hevyn and my body to be buryed in the quere off Saynt George off Stannford aforesayd. Also I gyff to the hye aultar off Saynt George for tythes and offeryng not perfytely done vjs viijd. Item to oure ladyes werks off Lincoln xijd. Item I wyll that my wyffe shall have all the plate that was hyrs before that I maryed hyr. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij coppys off sylver parcell gylte with covers, a pece callyd the horn all gylte. Also I gyffe to my said wyffe a pece gylt with the whetesheffe in the bottom the which I gaffe hyr before our maryage. Also I wyll that she have all hyr good off howshold that were hyrs at the day of oure maryage in as good state and repayre as thei were that same day. Also I gyff to my said wyffe xxti ky[n]e and a bull off myn owne goods in recompence off such catell as she brought to me. Item I gyff to my said wyffe ij horsys and ij marys. Also I gyffe to my said [sic] l quarters of malte xxti quarters of Barleye, x quarters of wheite xlti lods of woode. And lx shepe that is to say xl old shepe and xx lambys. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij feytherbedds one in the Nursery and one other in the Clossett wher she lyethe. Also I gyff to my said wyffe (ij fetherbedds del ) the bed and bedsteid with the hyngyngs of sylke as it standeth complete in the gesse Chamber bye the strete. Also I gyff to my said wyffe a marke of Swanys merkyd with ladull streight upp and down the byll and the legge and she to enioye it to hyr and hyr assignes for ever. Also I gyff to Richard Cyssell myn eldest son ij complete fetherbedds one over the Clossett and one other over the parlure as they stand holly. Also I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to Davyd my second son ij feyther bedds complete, one at the stayr hed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fether bedd. Also I wyll that Davyd my said son shall have my blakke gown off clothe lyned with damaske and a dublett off saten stokked, a jackett and my grene cote. Also I gyff to Antonye Villers my second gown, my best dublett and my velvett jackett. Also I gyff to my said wyffe all my lands in Staunford in Nassington and els’ where for the term of hyr lyffe and after hyr departyng I wyll that all my said lands do remayne to my said son Richard Cycell and to his heyres for ever. Also I gyff to my doughter Jone xx li sterlyng in money or money wurthe and to be delyveryd to Jane my wyffe beyng hyr naturall mother, to be in save custodye off hyr said mother for preferment and promocion off hyr maryage. Also I gyff to every one off the four orders off frers off Staunford to pray for me vjs viijd. Item I gyff to Jhone my doughter the one half off howsehold stuffe at Dowsebeys as in brasse, pewter and beddyng hangyngs lynen and other stuff remaynyng at Dowsebye and all the stuff to be in custodye off Jane my wyffe unto the tyme off maryage off Jhone my said doughter. Also I gyffe to Richard Cyssell my son all my tytle and interest that I have in the Chauntre londs that be gyven for the fyndyng off a preste to syng for Sir Davyd Phylypp in saynt Marys Churche in Staunford. Also I gyff to my said sonne Richard all my tytle and Interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Staunford and in all other placys the which John Dycons left to be song for by a preste in saynt marys Church aforesaid for his soule and all crysten soulys. Also I gyff to Davyd Cyssell my second son xxti quarters off barley to be delyveryd to hym by myn executour before and over this half ffest of Saynt Martyn in Wynter next to ffolowe the day off my departyng from this lyffe and to be taken out off my Cropps that groweth or may growe in Tynwell ffelds. Also I wyll that my detts be payd off my goods laufully known and askyd. Also I wyll that all the hangyngs, tabulls, trestylls and fformes and other Implyments in the hall, in my greit parlure and in my galery on the south syde off my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne theyr as standerds or heyre lomes for ever. Item I wyll that Sir William Huddylston shall syng for my Soule and ( del ) all Crysten souls by the space of one yere next after my departyng in saynt George Churche in Staunford and shall have v li for hys stypend. Also I gyff to every off my servaunts a blakke cote off clothe and to Richard Wyre my servaunt a fetherbed. Item I wyll that theyr be gyven for the helthe off my soule and all Cristen souls at iij days xx li, that is to say at the day off my buryeng, at the vij thday and the xxx ti day. The Residue off my goods unbequethyd I gyff and bequeth unto Richard Cycell my son whom I make my sole executour, he to have ( del ) occupie and enioye my said goods to the payment and contentacion off my detts and the fulfyllyng and performacion off thys my testament and last wyll. Also I ordeyn and make Mr John Haryngton of Exton supervisour off this mye testament, to whom I gyff and bequeth an horse. Thes beyryng wytnes Sir David Smyth parson off Saynt George my gostly ffather, Mr Andrew Gannow, John Alen, Sir William Sherman vicar of Maxsey, Sir Wyllam Huddilston and other. There are no signatures or any other markings – no endorsements except those of the Cotton collection. This document is on paper, clearly written. It is either a copy of the will or a draft; we need to compare it against the probate copy to see if there are changes. There are a few deletions which could be the result of miscopying or drafting errors. Loades, following Bindoff, dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen this one is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1536 – i.e. 1537. The will was proven in March 1541/2. The description of the house is the main feature of this will. David Cecil’s first wife Lord Burghley recorded David Cecil’s first wife (his grandmother) as Alice, daughter of John Dyccons of Stamford, and this has been repeated in every pedigree so far. That she was the daughter of Dyccons seems certain although there is no direct evidence. Dyccons asked Cecil to use the proceeds from the Tabard for masses for his soul, and the town council gave to Cecil the waits’ badges which Dyccons as councillor held. But the gild book of St Katherine’s gild (which is strictly contemporary) records that in November 1497, David Cecil and his wife Agnes were admitted to gild (Gonville and Caius MSS 266/670 fol 39d; see Alan Rogers 2011 Act Book of St Katherine’s Gild 1480-1534 Bury St Edmunds : abramis publishers). There is no other known mention of her name; she entered the household of Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and died in that household in 1507 (St John’s College, Cambridge, SJCC D91.19 fols 30, 34) – well before William Cecil was born. We can only assume that Lord Burghley was misinformed. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next