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

< Back Window Tax Professor Alan Rogers 2018 Window Tax was imposed by Parliament in 1696, replacing the Hearth Tax, to help meet the cost of reminting the damaged coinage. After 1792 houses with between 7 and 9 windows were taxed at 2 shillings, and from 10 to 19 windows at 4 shillings. In 1825 houses with less than 8 windows were exempt. The tax was finaly abolished in 1851. The following extract is taken from a volume in the British Library entitled: 'Cases which have been determined by the JUDGES relative to the DUTIES on Houses and Windows and on Inhabited Houses'. Printed in the year MDCCLXXXII. For ease of reading a modern typeface has been used but the original capitalisation and punctuation have been preserved. CASE concerning a Surcharge made by the Surveyor of Windows Borough of Stamford Mr Howgrave was appointed Surveyor in 1762, and immediately after made a very diligent Survey in the Borough of Stamford, where he found several Houses undercharged, and the Commissioners allowed his several Surcharges; but Mr Howgrave having made a Charge of One Pound Ten Shillings upon the House inhabited by the Gaoler of this Corporation, for Eighteen Windows therein contained, Simon Peter Martin, the Gaoler appeared before the acting Commissioners on the 28th day of August last, and appealed to the Surcharge, which the Commissioners thought ought not to be in Charge, and determined in Favour of the Appellant. Upon which the Surveyor declaring himself dissatisfied, and requiring a Case to be specially stated according to the Direction of the Act of Twenty-first of his late Majesty King George the Second; the same is stated, as it appeared to the Commissioners to be as follows. The Gaol, which is very ancient, belongs to the Corporation of Stamford, by Grant from the Crown. The Appellant has been Gaoler of the Borough of Stamford above Thirty-two Years last past, and never paid Window Tax, Land Tax, Highway Assessment, Church or Poor’s Rates whatsoever, for, or in Respect of the Gaol, or his Dwelling house, The Appellant’s Predecessors never paid any of the Taxes or Rates above mentioned. 21st Sept. 1762 Thomas Taylor, Mayor John Exton, Alderman, Barnaby Turner, Francis Moore, Alderman 6th July 1767 We are of Opinion, That the Determination of the Commissioners is wrong. Mansfield E. Wilmot E. Clive Rich. Adams J. Yates J. Hewitt Middlesex A print version can be downloaded HERE 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 The Stamford Deviation Mike Sockett 2018 There is a common assertion that the Great Northern Railway planned for their route to come through, or near to, Stamford and that it was the objection of the Marquis of Exeter that stopped this. However there is evidence that this was not the case and is certainly not the whole picture. In May 1844 the GNR proposed a route through Peterborough and a meeting was held in Stamford to lobby for a ‘deviation’ that would take the railway near the town, with a station at Newstead. By August the GNR had decided against the deviation, though the people of Stamford continued campaigning. It seems that the Marquis of Exeter initially supported this deviation but by 1846 had withdrawn his support and then become an active opponent. There is s letter in the Mercury on June 14th 1847 which is a clear attack on Exeter accusing him of being a hypocrite. In this it is asserted that when the deviation was proposed Exeter actually drew a line of the railway on the map and made sure it would pass through his land! It is then asserted that when the GNR refused to give him the price he was asking for his land he withdrew his support and instructed his Parliamentary nominee Granby to remove from the Bill all references to the Stamford deviation. As the letter is signed by ‘a person’ this was clearly a political issue – there was general election the following month. A Committee of the House of Commons had considered the issue of the deviation and gave their reasons for refusal on June 8th 1847, here addressing the role of the Marquis of Exeter: “….it may well have weighed with the Committee to consider whether they would sanction anything which could in any way injure or detract from the noble, and princely, and historical domain of Burghley…..these cases were by no means the grounds for our decision. It was a matter of public not private interest which swayed us in the judgement at which we arrive.” The Committee also dealt clearly with the whole issue of whether the deviation was in the general interest: “…..as the station intended for them by the Great Northern was to be upwards of a mile from the town of Stamford, they would still have that distance to go to gain the GN, thereby gaining an advantage of only three miles, while the rest of England travelling on that line and not intending to stop at Stamford, would be carried nearly two miles out of their course by the proposed deviation; and it came therefore to a nice account for the Committee to settle between Stamford and all the rest of the travelling world, whether the people of Stamford should go three miles out of their way or all other travellers two miles. It was, as it were, a fair match between Stamford on the one side and all England and Scotland on the other; we thought that England had it.” There are two interpretations of the role of Burghley in this: Firstly that he did not want the GNR through Stamford, but supported the campaign of the town to keep in with its citizens (and voters!). His support is referred to as ‘luke warm’ in one source. Secondly that he did want Stamford on the GNR because it would be very profitable for him, but he miscalculated the price the company was willing to pay for his land. It would seem that the idea of the GNR passing through, or near to, Stamford was never part of the railway company’s plan and it was always referred to as a ‘deviation’, ie a deviation from the preferred route through Peterborough and Tallington. For a map of railway routes in the Stamford area that shows the line of the deviation proposal see Martin Smith, ‘Stamford Then and Now’, (1992), page 120. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Belgian Refugees in Stamford Jean Orpin 2014 This paper was prepared by Jean Orpin as part of the research carried out for the Stamford commemoration of the start of World war I in August 1914. Between late August 1914 and May 1915, 250,000 Belgian Refugees came to Britain. It was the largest influx of political refugees in British history. Today it is almost entirely forgotten. Yet in the early part of the war helping Belgian refugees was a significant part of Stamford’s contribution to the war effort. October 16th 1914 Stamford Mercury An appeal is made by Mr Samuel, President of the Local Government Board for hospitality which is urgently necessary for town and country organisations to provide accommodation on a considerable scale and is asking for places to take 50-100 or more. He also appealed for individuals to offer care. The Belgian refugees tell an awful story of savagery which compelled them to flee from Mekelen, a manufacturing town of 60,000. On Sunday September 27th after German bombardment the whole town lay in ruins. It was then occupied by German soldiers. Refugees fled to Welhem where they stayed for 3 days and nights then that town was invaded and they went to Antwerp and were shipped to Harwich. October 23rd A crowded meeting was held at the Town Hall to consider the maintenance of the refugees attended by the Mayoress, the Marchioness of Exeter, Countess Villiers, the Countess of Ancaster and other prominent residents. The Mayor hoped that everyone would do all they could and they needed to think of expenses. Mrs Edmonds had offered furniture and the Mayor had bought 9 beds and 16 blankets and would make the gift up to £20. The estimated cost of maintenance was 7/- per week. Mr Halliday and Reverend Rogers advised proceeding cautiously as many of Stamford’s own residents might need help before the war was over. Mr Coulson said that the town could be divided into districts and ladies appointed to collect weekly subscriptions. The Roman Catholic priest asked if they could get French refugees as he did not understand Flemish. The Mayor proposed that they proceed with arrangements for 20 and appointed a committee. The Mayor said that gifts of clothing, bedding, furniture and linen were acceptable. Satisfactory arrangements were made with the owner of Eversley House School, Mr R. G. Evans. This commodious dwelling has been furnished for the reception of the refugees. Large quantities of bedding, furniture and household requisites have been given or loaned by the townspeople. The gas company undertook to supply gas free of cost and the Urban Electric Company would supply electric light at 2d a unit instead of 5d. A letter to the Mercury suggested that a quiet reception be made as he had already noticed a lot of schoolchildren peering through the windows of Eversley House as if something in the nature of a freek show was taking place. Villages were participating too. Easton had a house available. Collyweston planned to make a weekly collection. Folkingham had a scheme for entertaining and accommodating a number of refugees. Duddington and Ryhall also offered support. October 30th The Belgian Refugee fund had £389 in the bank. Mrs Pepper of Red Lion Square collected 2040 pennies.Madame Matilde Dorzou was put in charge of Eversley House, which had been fitted up to house about 30 refugees. The first party of 30 including a banker, an accountant and the postmaster of Louvain arrived on the 22nd and was met at the station by the Mayor and Mayoress, the Town Clerk and Reverend Father West, the Honourable Mrs Geoffrey Pearson and Mr Orlando Edmonds. Brakes conveyed the refugees to Eversley House where they were addressed by the Mayor. Ten more refugees arrived on Saturday evening. They attended mass each morning. The light and gas company supplied fuel on special terms. Drs Greenwood and Attenborough were in attendance. November 6th £462 has been paid into the Relief Fund. Another party of refugees were expected and preparations were made at a house on Broad Street, formerly occupied by Mr Hassan which brought the number of refugees up to 60. November 13th Relief Fund £ 493. To avoid difficulties at Eversley House two families left for Manchester. November 20th A whist drive raised £8 10s 6d for the refugees. December 6th A party arrived but soon moved on. Peasant classes arrived to occupy premises at 18 and 19 Broad Street. December 11th Relief fund £689. December 18th It was agreed that empty houses occupied by refugees should not pay rates. T he Invasion of Belgium Germany planned to conquer France quickly. As the border was heavily fortified they planned to avoid the French fortifications by invading neutral Belgium as part of the Schleifflen Plan to capture Paris quickly. This act was seen as a violation of International law as Belgium was a neutral country. Belgian neutrality had been respected in the past and Britain had guaranteed Belgium independence with the Treaty of London in 1839. The invasion took place on August 4th. King Albert, declaring that Belgium was a country not a road, led the Belgian army which resisted the invasion. The first battle in Belgium was at Liege (August 5-16th). This delayed the German progress and gave the British time to send a British Expeditionary Force to Belgium to join the Belgian army. It was small but highly professional. (The British did not have a large army and depended on the Navy as a main line of defence.) Although the Germans were stopped, they had overrun Belgium which remained in their hands for the rest of the war. Over a million refugees fled the country, a quarter a million to England. War Refugee Committees were set up to cope with the refugees.Belgium had a population of 7.5 million. It was a prosperous country with an economy based on trade and industry including a steel industry and coal and iron but imported food. The major ports were Antwerp and Ostend. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Recreation Ground Bandstand Chris Hunt 2021 OPENING CEREMONY PERFORMED BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR For months past the work of improving the north portion of the Recreation Ground almost out of recognition has gone steadily forward. Although at the outset the scheme, which owes its inception to Councillor T.S.Duncomb, the then Mayor, was received with some divergence of opinion, it is indisputable that the appearance of the grounds has been considerably smartened. Above the rail fence which now divides the wide expanse of grass are a bowling green, and spaces to be devoted to tennis courts, croquet lawns, and quoit beds. Along winding grass-bordered paths one passes beds of shrubs and flowers, whilst scores of trees have been added. In time to come these will provide grateful summer shade for the occupants of the many conveniently placed seats. The crowning glory of the scheme is the new bandstand, in all its bravery of white and green, surrounded by a wide circle of gravel walk. A neat plate records the fact that it was erected by public subscription. This prettily designed structure was the scene of Thursday evening’s (July 14th 1910) interesting ceremony, Councillor Duncomb, in the presence of a large gathering, formally opening the bandstand and grounds. The bandstand was designed by Messrs. J.B.Corby and Son, architects, All Saints’ Place, and erected by Mr Woolston. It was originally intended, if funds had allowed, to erect a more pretentious ornamental structure, including a basement below the ground for storage of chairs, also screens for the bandsmen, and other improvements. The tenders, however, came to considerably more than the promoters had in hand, so the architects modified the scheme and cut down the ornamentation to meet it. Several gentlemen made gifts of various parts of the structure and thus enabled the stand to be erected for very much less than would otherwise have been the case, those contributing being Messrs. Miles, Williamson, Cliff, and Co., Mr T.S.Duncomb, Mr J.Woolston, and others. The dimensions of the stand, which is octagonal, are 19 feet across and two feet from the ground to floor line and twelve feet from floor to ceiling; the total height from ground (including vane) is 33 feet. The base is built of brickwork, faced with local freestone, on cement concrete foundations; the floor is cement concrete finished smooth. The eight posts of chestnut, having moulded bases, caps, and necking, are dowelled to the concrete angles and held in position with bolts to the roof framing. The ceiling is in match boarded panels with mould around. The main bearers are moulded and supported around each post by ornamental cut brackets in which can be seen the initial “S” (Stamford). The roof is covered with buff roofing tiles, the whole being surmounted by an ornamental weather vane, presented by the Ex-Mayor, finished on roof with bossed and dressed leadwork. The enclosure to the stand is formed by moulded rails and sills filled in with square balusters, with gate on south side to match, having an approach of three York steps. At the south east angle is the foundation stone, to which is affixed an engraved brass plate having the Borough Arms and “A.D. 1909. Erected by public subscription, T.S.Duncomb, Mayor.” A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Restoration and Rebuilding of Browne's Hospital 1870 David Wallington 2012 A report of 1869 stated: The Hospital buildings are in an advanced state of decay and dilapidation and with the exception of a small part are hardly fit for habitation. There was pressure to completely clear the site which occupies land between Broad Street and North Street and erect new buildings, but local opinion forced a rethink and the current two storey building on Broad Street was retained. James Fowler (known widely as Fowler of Louth) was appointed architect. Fowler was born in Lichfield and trained under Joseph Potter, the Cathedral’s architect. His career spanned the years of the Gothic revival and following his move to Lincolnshire he was active in building or restoring churches, vicarages and public buildings as well as being responsible for designing three alms-houses: Browne’s, Allenby Almhouses in Fotherby and Orme Almhouses in Louth as well as adding buildings to Holy Trinity in Retford and Gospelgate Bedehouses in Louth. It is therefore not surprising that Fowler should turn to Minton for the tiled floor in the passage between the Common Room and Chapel and to Skidmore of Coventry for the gas fittings and art metalwork. Francis Skidmore took over his father’s firm in 1845 and initially repaired church silverware. But he was soon designing church furnishings and was a pioneer in the gas lighting and heating of churches. He exhibited at the 1851 Great Exhibition and was widely used by George Gilbert Scott for the then fashion of metal screens separating chancels from naves. Of these the best known are the screens at Lichfield (still in place), Hereford (now in the V & A) and Salisbury (parts of which are being rediscovered). One of his largest commissions was the huge fleche on the top of the Albert Memorial in London and the wonderfully intricate metal fencing around that memorial. Sadly his obsessiveness with detail led to bankruptcy and because of the loss of his firm’s records he remains an obscure Victorian innovator and entrepreneur. His gas fittings have largely disappeared but we are fortunate that at Browne’s we have three examples of light fittings adapted for electricity: two in the passage and cloisters and one (lamp standard) on the eastern side of the lawn. Inside we have a rare example of two gas fittings still in place on the balcony of the chapel and a part of another fitting in the Confrater’s Room. A lot of the metal work on the doors of the old building and on the accommodation for the residents is clearly also from the Skidmore Manufactory. A tentative examination of Fowler’s work suggests that he turned to Skidmore when working on other projects in the county. It somehow seems fitting that in the 19th Century Browne’s Hospital turned to Coventry for work on the alms-houses as William Browne had developed links with it when developing his wool trading business four hundred years previously. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford in 1868 Chris Hunt 2018 1868. J.Clapton. Esq; Mayor. February 25th, owing to the failure of his health, the Earl of Derby resigned the premiership, and on the 28th, Mr Disraeli became Prime Minister. In March, the entrance lodge to Burghley High Park, near the race course, was commenced. May 4th, Viscount Ingestre (son of the Earl of Shrewsbury) elected Member of Parliament for Stamford, vice Viscount Cranbourne elevated to the peerage by the death of his father, the Marquis of Salisbury. On the 8th a spirited race was rowed on the river Welland between Stamford Bridge and the Railway Bridge, between the crews of an outrigger and a four-oared gig, and attracted crowds of spectators. The colours were light blue and white. The “light blues” won by a length. On the 23rd June, William Unwin Heygate was elected Member of Parliament, in place of Viscount Ingestre, elevated to the peerage. July 31st, close of the last Parliament elected under the Reform Bill of 1832. August 6th, an Anglo-Saxon cinerary urn was found on the Essendine Railway in the parish of St George. September 18th, a steamer on board which was Lord Burghley, eldest son of the Marquis of Exeter, was wrecked in Queen Charlotte’s Sound, New Zealand. No lives lost. October 14th, about 5.00am, a very destructive fire broke out at Mr Joseph Phillips’ brewery, in Water-street, and was not got under control for some hours, during which time it destroyed the malting-rooms (which contained several hundred quarters of malt) and the ale stores. The damage was very heavy. The town engines were present and also one from Burghley, one from the works of Messrs. Ashby and Jeffery, and Mr Blashfield’s L’Extincteur. On the 17th, a stone coffin, of the Roman period, containing two skeletons and fragments of pottery, a bone pin, &c., was found on the farm of Mrs Gilchrist, between Stamford and Tinwell, about half a mile from Ermine-street. November 11th, the London Gazette contained a proclamation for dissolving the seventh parliament of Queen Victoria. The Second Reform Bill having deprived the borough of Stamford of one of its members, Sir John Hay was on the 16th returned as Stamford’s only representative in Parliament. Mr Andrew Gray, a shipping agent from London, was proposed and seconded; he made a speech and then his candidature was withdrawn. On the 2nd of December, the Disraeli ministry resigned, on the account of the result of the election. Showing a majority of one hundred and twenty-one to the opposition. On the 4th, Mr Gladstone was commanded to form a ministry, which was sworn into office on the 9th. Source:- The Annals of Stamford 1837-1887 by Arthur J. Waterfield printed and published in 1867 by Haynes & Son, 51 High Street, Stamford. Note: - 1868 was the year of parliamentary elections in Stamford. Two by-elections in May and June followed by a General Election in November when the borough returned for the first time just one Member of Parliament. The reduction from two being as a result of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1867. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford. Elizabeth Pulley. Murder Most Foul Chris Hunt 2022 On March 16th 1860 there occurred in High Street, St Martins, a murder most foul when Elizabeth Pulley, ‘spinster of that parish’ was murdered in her own home and valuables stolen by a near neighbour, Henry Corby. Although first thought to be an unfortunate accident. Having failed to cover-up his crime by attempting to burn the body of the deceased, but when evidence was found that pointed towards his involvement and the body exhumed he was arrested and charged with her murder. Before he was committed to trial he took his own life in Stamford Gaol. This crime was not just of local interest, articles reporting the case appeared in local, regional and national newspapers. The Victorians loved to read about gruesome murders. The last public hanging did not place till eight years later. There must have been some who were disappointed that Henry Corby took his own life, which ironically he did by hanging in his prison cell. Printed broadside ballads were a common sight being sold on the streets, on market days and at fairs. They were quickly printed on cheap paper whenever publishers saw a profit. The murder of Elizabeth Pulley was just such an opportunity as can be seen from the following transcribed document which was printed by Taylor, Printer, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green (London). Although undated the original dates from 1860. Although we can read it from a moral viewpoint, it could be suggested that it falls into a ballad sub-genre best described as Gallows Literature. THE LAMENTATION OF Mrs. ELIZABETH PULLEY Who was Murdered, Robbed, and Burnt at Stamford _______________________________________ The cruelest murder e’re was pen’d, Has in that place been found. Elizabeth Pulley, a lady was, To the poor was good and kind, Who was robbed & murdered by a wretch To a cinder burnt we find. The gold rings from her finger, The murderer took away, The writing-desk and a bank-note, With a hundred pounds they say. The silver-plate and other things, Both gold and silver coin, He took from Lady Pulley, Who was so good and kind. The white-locks from off her head, The murderer he must tear, For amongst burnt clothing and other things, Was found much human hair. The carpenter that did her work, Henry Corby, was his name. And for that horrid murder They took him for the same. He must have had a heart of stone, To do that dreadful deed, For of all the murders that ere was done, This is the worst, indeed. To a cinder burnt the lady, Oh, what a cruel one; In the ashes was found her tooth, Likewise her finger bone. Oh, the deed was laid to Corby, A carpenter by trade; And since the murder has been done, He many a debt has paid. Two young men that was in his shop, On a shelf, they by chance did see, The writing-desk and the gold rings, Which belonged to Mrs Pulley. For Elizabeth and Thomas Pulley, On the gold rings were their names, Which those young men saw in the shop And to the police they told the same. For murder they took Corby, And charged him with the crime, And remanded he has been At Stamford different times. Upon the nineteenth day of April, Just at the break of day, Fast to a bar of the window, Corby hung himself, they say. And those that read these verses, Cannot help to shed a tear, For on a slate he had wrote these words, Unto his wife and children dear. From public-houses, my dear boy, I pray you keep away, And try to assist your mother, Much as in your power lay. Do try to help one another, Through this wide world of care, Farewell to you, my loving wife, Adieu my children, dear. Taylor, Printer, 93, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The State of Stamford's Housing at the end of the Great War Chris Hunt 2022 At the General Election held in 1918. Lloyd George, a Liberal politician, and Prime Minister of the War Coalition Government, called for "a country fit for heroes to live in". If not fully accepted by all political parties, it was one that none could argue against. It was therefore not surprising that the resulting elected Coalition Government of which nearly two thirds were Conservatives Members of Parliament, followed this ethos by carrying out a number of reforms championed by their junior partners, the Liberal Party. One of these revolved around improving the housing stock for working class families. A commissioned Parliamentary report on housing was produced by the Tudor Walters Committee in November 1918. This led to the The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act of 1919. The recommendation of the committee and the subsequent Act set the standards for council house design in the inter-war years. It was in this atmosphere that the Borough of Stamford Medical Officer of Health, Mr E.A.Hutton Attenborough M.B. B.S. presented his 1918 report to the town’s Health Committee in March 1919. Housing was a major concern and he stated that he would like to see upwards of 200 houses built to replace those he wished to see closed. And that these new houses should be built as a Garden City, either singly or in pairs, and not to be more than eight to the acre. Once built he stated that he would ask the Council to close every court in Stamford and also numerous streets. Not only closed, but demolished, thereby improving the ‘supply of air’ to adjacent properties and also allowing the widening of some roads in the Borough. As to the list of streets to be demolished in whole or in part: 1) Water Street. 2) North Street, including Belgrave Terrace and School Terrace. 3) East Street and Hope Terrace. 4) Elm Street. 5) Gas Street, Stokoe’s Buildings and Milner’s Row. 6) Welland Street and Tenter Lane. 7) Wharf Road, from St George’s School House to St Leonard’s Street. 8) North side of St Leonard’s Street, except Cornstall Buildings. 9) Brazenose Lane. 10) Bath Row. 11) Sheep Market, Castle Buildings. 12) Austin Street and Austin Friar’s Lane. 13) Eight Acres and Foundry Road. Besides these streets the Medical Officer of Health stated that there were numerous other houses dotted around the town which needed to be closed, and that there were some betterclass houses in the ‘condemned streets’ which his remarks did not apply to. Concerns were also expressed over the sewerage system in the town and the supply of fresh water, neither were adequate, even by the standards of the day. As to the sewerage system, this had been improved before the Great War, but was still far from perfect and some expensive alterations and additions were necessary. The report also raised concerns over the Water Supply, both in quantity and quality and that fresh steps were needed to provide the town with a pure and plentiful supply. It was his understanding that the Stamford St Martin’s and Wothorpe Water Works Company, whose proprietor was The Most Hon. The Marquess of Exeter was consulting experts on this matter. The Medical Officer of Health was of the firm opinion that the Borough Council should now procure powers from the Local Government Board to build at least 200 houses and that as these were built, then an equal number of the worst houses should be closed (and demolished). And that under such a State-aided housing scheme the first too benefit should be those who were living under conditions dangerous to health. The then private sector developers were continuing to build private housing after the War on the eastern edge of the town along Doughty Street and Rutland Road and subsequently Drift Road, Drift Avenue and Drift Gardens. But, it was the Borough’s Council House Policy with the development of the council house estates north and south of New Cross Road and the gradual condemning of the slums in the centre of the town, that so radically changed the shape of the town in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and improve the living conditions Aided by Government Legislation and the Medical Officer of Health’s Report presented to the Council in 1919 kick-started the post-war expansion of the town. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Stamford Terracotta Company (Blashfield’s) Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 In 1858, John Marriott Blashfield (1811-1882) transferred his terracotta manufacturing business from London to Stamford in order to exploit the local Jurassic clays which were particularly suitable for terracotta production. Blashfield took over the site of the former Grant’s Iron Foundry on Wharf Road (Fig. 1), [1] which was considerably larger than his London premises and whose position adjacent to the River Welland was convenient for bringing clay in and shipping terracotta out. The site included a 100-foot-long showroom along its north edge. Fig.1 Gate Arch to Blashfield’s works The business was re-named The Stamford Terracotta Company and the new works were officially opened on 14 March 1859. The lighting of the first kiln was attended by the Marchioness of Exeter and her family and a bust of Queen Victoria fired to mark the occasion was presented to the monarch the following day. A detailed review of the Blashfield’s company and the wider history of the terracotta industry was published in the Stamford Mercury on 18th Feb 1859. [2] Most of the clay that Blashfield’s used was from brickyards in the vicinity of Stamford, principally the Earl of Lindsey’s estate at Uffington, the Marquis of Exeter’s pit at Wakerley and Mr John Lumby’s field in Stamford, with much of the rest being sourced from further afield at Poole and Devon. [3] In 1858, Mr Blyth of Uffington advertised his field of red clay as being fit for the manufacture of moulded and plain bricks, paving tiles, ridge coping, ornamental and plain flower pots, vases, chimney shafts and pots. Blashfield’s range of products far exceeded this, its wares ranging from utilitarian items such as bricks (Fig.2), tiles and chimney pots to architectural dressings, classical ornaments, statues and other sculpted figures. Fig.2 A Blashfield brick (Old Frechevillian’s Brick Collection) Taking inspiration from artists and architects, Blashfield employed highly skilled sculptors and craftsmen to produce his ware. In addition, he collected hundreds of casts of both classical and contemporary work. While he may have been influenced by the designs of the Coadestone factory, it is inconclusive whether he bought any of its moulds after it ceased production in the early 1840s. His clay recipes which contained a complex blend of ingredients typified his scientific approach to terracotta production. By 1861 the company was employing 46 men and 13 boys. The business prospered and Blashfield designs won medals at the 1862 and 1867 Paris Exhibitions (Fig.3). Fig.3 Advertisement for Blashfield's Terracotta With the introduction of new models, the range of products had increased to over 1400 items by 1870, fired in four kilns. Blashfield’s published illustrations of its merchandise in a series of trade catalogues (Fig. 4). It became a limited company in 1872. Fig.4 Trade catalogues (Internet Archive Free Download) Blashfield’s wares were widely sold throughout England and overseas and his architectural and garden ornaments found their way into many country houses, including those at Burghley and Uffington. An allegorical figure of Literature (Fig.5) is on view at Burghley House and four large terracotta urns commissioned by the Marquis of Exeter form the centrepieces of the fountains in the South Gardens (Fig.6). The boathouse at the eastern end of the lake was also built by Blashfield’s. Fig.5 Allegorical figure of Literature (Burghley Collections. Ref EWA08621) Fig.6 Terracotta urn in Burghley’s South Gardens (Burghley House website) The whereabouts of most of the works of art and garden ornaments manufactured for the Earl of Lindsey from his own clay are unknown but Blashfield urns, probably based on a Coade design, still adorn the imposing gate piers (Fig.7) of his Uffington mansion which burnt down in 1904. Fig.7 One of a pair of Blashfield terracotta urns on the gateway to the lost Uffington House Blashfield’s products were used for both structural and decorative purposes in many properties in Stamford town but few examples remain. The most notable building is the grade-II- listed, former Scotgate Inn with its red terracotta facade (Fig.8(a)). 4 Another example is a shop at 30 High Street whose 1873 frontage contains five red terracotta panels amongst its detailing (Fig. 8(b)). Fig.8 (a) Former Scotgate Inn at 5 Scotgate, and (b) 30 High Street Despite its early successes and its strong international reputation, a combination of poor business practices, misfortune and competition from cheaper mass-produced terracotta. drove the company into voluntary liquidation. The Blashfield’s works closed in 1875 and its plant and stock were auctioned off. Blashfield died on 15 December 1882 after a short illness. The site of his factory on Wharf Road is now occupied by a residential development completed in 2007. Notes [1] In 1937 the arch was rebuilt several feet to the south and parallel with the road [2] ‘Art Manufactory in Lincolnshire. Terra Cotta Works at Stamford.’ The Lincolnshire, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. Friday, February 18, 1859, p.3 [3] Blashfield's was not the only terracotta manufacturer in Stamford. Henry Lumby had a production site in St Martin's in 1868 and 1872 and in 1863 Charles Joseph Whitton had a works in London Road. [4] Earlier used as a depot for P & R Phipps and now in commercial use. Bibliography ‘John Marriott Blashfield’. Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951. University of Glasgow History of Art and HATII, online database 2011 http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=ann_1263577621 HeritageGateway Lincolnshire HER. Blashfield Terracotta Factory, Wharf Road, Stamford. HER Number MLI30744 'Sectional Preface: Building Materials and Construction', in An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the Town of Stamford (London, 1977), pp. lxiv-lxix. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/stamford/lxiv-lxix The Gardens Trust. ‘Artificial Stone 4: Post-Coade potteries.’ https://thegardenstrust.blog/2016/08/13/artificial-stone-4-post-coade-potteries/ A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Nora Blake: young Stamford pacifist K Hansell, N J Sheehan 2021 Following the World War One exhibition at Stamford Arts Centre in November 2018, the Society was contacted by Paul Markwell regarding his mother Nora Blake. As a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl in Stamford, Nora wrote the winning essay in a national competition for children of ex-servicemen. Her achievement was reported in The Stamford and Rutland News on Tuesday May 8, 1934, and the essay was reproduced in full in the next issue of the newspaper. Stamford St George’s School Girl’s Prize Essay 1934 Nora Blake (aged 13) War War! The very word makes me shiver. Although the Great War ended before I was born, I know enough about it to realise that all countries concerned are still suffering from its results. We are all paying the penalty. No country can spend four years in destruction, blowing millions of pounds in the air in the form of shells, without suffering from chaos. The whole of the industrialised world was disorganised, and as a consequence many soldiers who survived from the war without serious consequences came back only to find it impossible to secure employment. Also thousands of families mourn the loss of loved ones, and thousands more have the care of those who were disabled, the blind, the crippled, the insane. Truly war levies a terrible toll. Without dwelling unduly on the horrors of war, or its far-reaching ill effects on the community, I think that all will agree that the great task of this generation is to arrange international affairs so that another war is avoided. Politicians during the war, I understand, talked a lot about it being a war to end war and since 1918 the League of Nations has had a meeting in Geneva with this end in view. Disarmament Conferences have been held and there has been much talk between nations. But, while every country agrees that war should end, the nations have not been able to form any plans to satisfy all. Every conference has closed without achieving any tangible result and this is a very disappointing state of affairs. After sixteen years of conferences we find that the nations mistrust each other and are afraid to put down armaments. Suspicion is the order of the day and we find nations arranging to spend more money on defence services. All are seeking security but will a competition in armaments give security? Let us consider this question. This makes us think about the next war. I think that there will be as much difference in the next war and the Great War as there was between that and the Napoleonic Wars. I think death will come from the air in the form of gas and poison bombs. Attacks will take us by surprise and the result will be that large cities, with all their inhabitants, will be wiped out in a few hours. It seems very possible to spend all out lives in defence and yet be unsafe. What is the alternative? Just this. All lovers of peace must continue to work for gradual disarmament, even if their cause seems hopeless. All education should have this end view. Public demonstrations of a warlike nature should be avoided. Children should not be taken to torchlight tattoos and boys should not be encouraged to play with toy soldiers. An international army, having all the armaments of the world, should keep peace in the same way that the police force keeps civil peace. It is very rarely that a policeman has to fight but the knowledge that he is there, backed by the powers of justice, is generally sufficient to keep us safe from robbery and violence and I think that is the ideal for all peace lovers, for the world to be policed. Now, no idea was ever realised easily. Rome was not built in a day and all the countries of the world will not become suddenly reasonable. But if all people who believe, as I do, will work and pray for “The Day”, it will come. It may not be in our time. But good citizens are always content to work for a future generation. In our school we have a book on citizenship which has on the cover a figure of the head of Jesus. It has two faces. So, in school, we learn the history of the past. We find that great progress has been made and that the world is much better to live in than it was in the middle ages. When we compare conditions with what they are today, we should be optimistic for the future. Shades of the great reformers of all times encourage us to carry on with the good work and not to doubt the ultimate result. It also seems to me that all nations are waiting for someone to take the lead. They are like children. I frequently hear children say “I will if you will” but no one wants to that the initiative. I believe that if France would only begin, Germany would be glad to follow and vice versa. I wish one country would have the courage to tell the world “We will disarm by 1950”. If the country could be my own, I should be very proud. I for one would be willing to take the risk. If I am to have a sticky finish, I should like to know that my country has done the right thing. If the world persists in arming, a future war is inevitable. It may not be in my time, but as a good citizen, that is no consolation. I am aware that all I have said is idealistic, but nevertheless, all good peace-loving people must work for peace on these lines, looking with the eye of faith for the glorious dawn of the day when “Swords shall be turned into plough-shares and spears into pruning hooks” The Winning Medal Nora Blake was the third of the four children of Frank and Vida Blake, with an elder brother John, sister, Olive and a younger brother, Ken. They were all born and brought up in Stamford. Nora left school at 15 and went to work at Martin-Markham Ltd where she met her future husband, Len Markwell. In later life she was known as "Jill". Len and Jill moved to Ryhall in 1956 where they lived for over 50 years. Jill Markwell continued to write for pleasure, often poems that she would send to friends. She was always very proud of the medal that she won in the national competition when she was 13. Jill sadly passed away in May 2009. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next