< Back George Longstaff and Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacture in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Brief History of the Clay Pipe industry The manufacture of clay tobacco pipes began in England in the 16th century soon after the introduction of tobacco from North America by Sir Francis Drake . [1] London took the lead in producing pipes, followed by Bristol, and the industry quickly spread throughout the country, so that b y the mid-17th century clay pipe making was a well-established trade nationally. [2] The South West of England, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, was the primary source of the white earthenware clay used throughout the pipe making process. Pipe smoking was common amongst all classes but the fortunes of the industry fluctuated early on in response to opposing factors such as the punitive tobacco tax of 1604 and the granting of a charter to the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers in 1619, [3] as well as to disruption by the English Civil War. [4] After smoking was temporarily supplanted by snuff in fashionable circles in the 18th century, [5] there was a resurgence of pipe making from about 1820. [6] However, a s cigarettes, cigars and wooden pipes subsequently became more popular, the industry went into terminal decline and few clay pipe-making businesses survived into the 20th century. [7] Clay Pipe Making in Stamford Pipe making reached Lincolnshire around 1640 [8] and clay pipes may have been being produced in Stamford by 1665. [9] The earliest trader of pipes in Stamford was Francis Barnewell, a surgeon and tobacconist, but it is unlikely that he made pipes himself, more probably bringing them in from London. [10] The first recorded pipe-maker was William Whitehead who was active in 1673 [11] and worked in the trade for about twenty years. [12] Several other pipe makers followed for short periods. [13] Robert Collington (d.1733), a grocer, imported clay from the Isle of Wight and Thanet [14] for the local pipe makers up to about 1716 [15] and later set up his own pipe-making business.[16] He may have been the only pipe maker working in Stamford at that time. Production of clay tobacco pipes in Stamford occurred mainly during the periods 1650-1745 and 1815-1895. [17] Between these times, because of falling demand, no pipe makers were recorded in the Stamford Hall books, either as freemen or apprentices, from about 1745 until 1817. [18] After Robert Middleton (1789-c.1860) entered the trade in 1817, [19] he and his family became the sole makers of pipes in the town until 1849. [20] His business on North Street was then taken over by George Longstaff. [21] George Longstaff (1815-1875) George Longstaff was the principal clay tobacco pipe-maker in Stamford during the third quarter of the 19th century. Born in 1815 in Spalding, he was the fifth of ten children of Henry Longstaff and his wife Ann (nee Sewell). All five sons became pipe makers, with at least four of them, Thomas Staveley, Charles, George and Sewell becoming masters and William and James being employed by other master pipe makers. George learnt his trade in Spalding before moving to Stamford, where he married Mary Larks (d.1916) at All Saints Church in 1846. They had eight children. [22] On taking control in 1849, George acquired Robert Middleton’s kiln, workshop and two-storey house on North Street. It was the only kiln operating in the town at the time [23] and he was assisted in running the business by his wife Mary and younger brother Sewell (b.1828). Robert Middleton’s youngest son, also called Robert, stayed on and worked for the Longstaffs for several years, most likely until at least 1863. [24] Other former Middleton employees who stayed on included William Henry Taylor and Robert Andrews. [25] Peter Cole and James Lees may also have worked for George Longstaff for a while. [26] It is evident that the business thrived as George submitted plans in 1873 to extend the kiln. [27] Although the Longstaffs remained in the same home, their address changed to 15 and 16 Elm Street after the east end of North Street was renamed East Street in about 1868 and the small lane between East Street and Broad Street became Elm Street. [28] Another of George’s brothers, Willliam (c.1817- bef.1881), was also working as a pipe-maker in Stamford in 1851, but for whom is uncertain. It is not known from where George Longstaff obtained his raw materials but one nearby source of tobacco pipe clay was the extensive pits at Northampton whose black or grey-coloured clay was exported to neighbouring and more distant counties. When such supplies were exhausted, the business may have used Devon clay. [29] Longstaff was not known to have used the brownish-coloured local clay, although Samuel Saunders who was a pipe maker in Stamford Baron in the late 17th and early 18th centuries occasionally did so. [30] George Longstaff marked most of his pipes 'GL' on the sides of the spur [31] and he was the only member of the family to add his personal insignia apart from Thomas Staveley Longstaff who stamped 'LONGSTAFF' upon the bowls of his pipes. [32] After George’s death in 1875, aged 59 years, his widow Mary took over the running of the business until at least 1892. However, by then, the industry was in sharp decline and falling demand forced her to cease manufacture and close down the kiln. [33] Efforts by the Longstaff Bros, probably George and Mary’s sons, A. and Jabez, to revive the business in 1896 proved futile [34] and most pipe-makers had shut down by end of the 19th century. The Longstaff’s brick-built clay pipe kiln was discovered in 1972 during building work on North Street, at the rear of Stamford School. [35] Fate of Clay Pipes The lifespan of clay pipes was relatively short. C onsidering the huge numbers produced, along with their fragility and disposable nature, it is unsurprising that intact or fragmentary examples are regularly found in rubbish dumps, on agricultural land, and in parks and domestic gardens, often carried there in midden waste or soil imported from elsewhere. [36] There have been major finds of clay tobacco pipes at several sites in Stamford, including that of the North Street kiln, the River Welland and Stamford Racecourse. [37] A small number of these pipes were made by George Longstaff. Clay tobacco pipe found in the Stamford area [Photo Nicholas J Sheehan] A print version can be downloaded HERE ------------------------------------------------------ [1] National Pipe Archive. Worcester and Clay Tobacco Pipes. http://www.pipearchive.co.uk› publications [2] Carpenter, Daniel. Clay pipe making. Heritage Crafts . April 26, 2017 [3] Oswald, Adrian. The Evolution and Chronology of English Clay Tobacco Pipes. Archaeological News Letter. Vol 7. No.3. September 1961. p.55 [4] National Pipe Archive [5] Oswald [6] Wells, Peter K. The Pipemakers of Lincolnshire. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.123 [7] Carpenter [8] Wells, p.123 [9] Comrie, A C. The Clay Tobacco Pipe Industry in Stamford. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.187 [10] Comrie, p.187-8 [11] Wells, p.160 [12] Comrie, p.188 [13] Comrie, p.188 [14] Comrie, p.193 [15] Comrie, p.188 [16] Wells, p.161 [17] Comrie, p.187 [18]Comrie, p.188 [19] Comrie, pp.194-5 [20] Comrie, p.188 [21] Wells, p.161 [22] Hammond, Peter. The Longstaff Family of Tobacco Pipemakers. Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 70. Autumn/ Winter 2006. pp.11-14 [23] Comrie, pp.194-6 [24] Comrie, p.195 [25] Comrie, p.197 [26] Comrie, p.199 [27] Wells, p.161 [28] Comrie, p.198 [29] Moore, W R G. Northamptonshire Clay Tobacco-Pipes and Pipemakers. Northampton Museums and Art Gallery, 1980. pp.4-5 [30]Comrie, p.192 [31] Comrie, p.223 [32] Hammond, p.13 [33] Comrie, p.193 [34] Comrie, p.200 [35] Wells, p.161 [36] Comrie, pp.219-21 [37] Comrie, p.201 Previous Next

< Back Terricus of Cologne Prof Alan Rogers 2012 The following notes on Terricus of Cologne were supplied by Professor Alan Rogers. STAMFORD in the thirteenth century was at the height of its greatness – the site of one of England’s greatest international fairs at which the debts incurred by overseas and English merchants were settled, as well as the home to two main industries, pottery making (which was beginning to decline) and the manufacture of woollen cloth. As one of Europe’s largest commercial centres, Stamford attracted many alien merchants from Italy, Germany and the Low Countries, as well as a large Jewish community with their own synagogue. Some of these alien merchants of Stamford, (for example, Eustace Malherbe from the Low Countries whose tombstone survives in St Paul’s church, Stamford) have attracted the attention of medieval historians. Among these is Terricus of Cologne or Terricus the German . A recent study of his life (Huffman 1998) helps us to throw some light on his career and to distinguish him from another merchant of the same name. For there were two men called Terricus Teutonicus in England at the time; one is known from 1199 and died in 1223, very rich in the king’s service (see Victoria County History, Hampshire , vol. iv p136). This is not the Stamford man who died some 25 years later. This Terricus Teutonicus (Dietrich the German) of Cologne was also known as Terricus of Stamford. He was burgess of Stamford known from 1217; he acted as party and as witness to a number of local property transactions. Unusually he left a lengthy roll listing his properties and business connections survives in the Public Record Office of The National Archive, presumably because of the forfeiture mentioned below; we do not have many such lists from laymen at this time. In 1218, he was called cambiator Regis Anglie (the king of England’s money changer, i.e. banker). He had a base in London where (in 1234) he had a large wine cellar. He is known to have been in the service of the king with shipments of trade, providing credit facilities, and sent on diplomatic missions; he was the royal bailiff of Stamford fair (one of the largest and richest international fairs in the country) and he was the largest distributor of cloth at the fair. He exported wool through Lynn and Boston. One interesting feature of this period of Stamford’s history is the way in which the alien merchants and the Jews were integrated into their English context. There is a good deal of evidence that they lived together and indeed intermarried relatively harmoniously – although the Jews did attract some hostility from time to time. It is known, for example, that some Jews gave money to the church for prayers for their souls after their death. They worked closely alongside their English fellow merchants. Terricus is an example: His wife was Beatrice; Juliana his daughter married William (de) Tickencote of Stamford, a member of the leading family in the town (William de Tickencote from 1240 to 1253 led a group of merchants in leasing the town from the king, see David Roffe Stamford in the Thirteenth Century 1994 p 30); and his son Walter became a priest in England. Terricus Teutonicus of Stamford died in or about 1247. His estates were frozen soon after his death between 1249 and 1255, which probably accounts for the survival of his cartulary roll among the records of the Exchequer (PRO, E328/16/1). In February 1253, a messuage (property) in the town was held half by William de Tickencote and Juliana his wife and half by Beatrice the widow of Terricus; but because its landlord was Cok the Jew, this messuage came to the king, for the property of Jews who died without legal heir was forfeited to the king. Cok the Jew died without known heirs, and so his property came to the king. In 1255, Terricus’s property was granted to a servant of Richard earl of Cornwall ( Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III 1251-53 p.451;1253-54 p 19). Based on J P Huffman Family, Commerce and Religion in London and Cologne Cambridge 1998 pp180-189. The roll which Terricus left and some of his other property dealings are calendared in Alan Rogers (ed) People and Property in Medieval Stamford: a catalogue of title deeds from the twelfth century to 1547 , arima and Stamford Survey Group, 2012) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath John Daffurn 2024 When Richard Newcomb gate-crashed the opening of the new, Bryan Browning designed, home of the Stamford Institution in 1842 he wanted to highlight the origins of the Institution four years earlier. Standing amongst the nobility and gentry of Stamford he stated that the Institution was “…originally projected and established by those who did not occupy the highest stations in life…” ( Lincolnshire Chronicle [ LC ] , 25.3.1842). That was indeed the case, as the provisional committee of the yet to be formed Institution, established at a meeting at Standwell's Hotel on 3 April 1838, comprised mainly of local shopkeepers ( Stamford Mercury [ SM ] , 6.4.1838). The interim chairman of this committee was Frances Simpson Jr, a soap-maker, and Thomas Fricker, the young editor of the Lincolnshire Herald and probably the most erudite amongst the group of grocers, ironmongers, curriers, jewellers and drapers, became its interim honorary secretary. The provisional committee pushed for a public meeting at the Town Hall which was held on 5 June 1838 where motions were passed to create an institution, with its attendant officers and committee. One motion thanked the provisional committee for promoting their cause and Francis Simpson, its chairman, responded: “…I feel Mr Mayor that it is a duty particularly incumbent upon me to make known to you the names of those of whom this provisional committee was composed; because, whatever good or ill may accrue from the institution we are about to form, (and I trust there can be none of the latter), will be attributable to those who had the moral courage to take the first steps towards its promotion and therefore their names shall not remain “ in umbra ” –shall not sink at once into oblivion– but, with your kind indulgence, I will now read them. First, let me mention that of Mr John Flowers Bentley, whose indisposition (which I hope will be of short duration) accounts for his absence from this meeting. He, it was, who first agitated this question, or, at least first mooted it to me…” ( LC , 22.6.1838) From instigator, to honorary secretary, to committee member, John Bentley’s association with the Stamford Institution spanned twenty-five years. John Flowers Bentley was baptised on 27 May 1810 in the village of Haconby, near Bourne. His father John Bentley Sr, the son of a farmer, was born in Swinstead, and his mother Sarah Flowers was born in Haconby. Within four years of John’s birth the family moved to the hamlet of Guthram Gowt, midway between Bourne and Spalding. There, Bentley’s father ran the New Inn and farmed some adjacent land. From 1815, John’s siblings were baptised in Bourne and, without a church in Guthram Gowt, that is the likely location of John’s schooling. There is no evidence of John Bentley’s education or early employment, but the life of Robert Sandall and a newspaper advertisement in 1863 provide clues for a hypothesis. Sandall was born a year later than John, in the neighbouring village of Rippingale, and was also a farmer’s son who eschewed work on the land. Sandall, who may have also been schooled in Bourne, became apprenticed to the bankers Eaton, Cayley & Co, and later joined Bentley on the provisional committee of the Stamford Institution. Many years later, in 1863, when John Bentley left Stamford, it was noted that he had been associated with the Eaton, Cayley & Co bank for almost forty years ( SM , 25.12.1863). If that statement is true, it might also place Bentley as an apprentice with the bank at the same time as Sandall. Were they also childhood school friends? After completing his apprenticeship, Sandall, at the age of twenty, moved to London before returning to Stamford to join the Northamptonshire Bank, on Stamford’s High Street, as a clerk. Bentley, on the other hand, if indeed working at Eaton, Cayley, may have remained with the bank for a while longer. However, by 1834 he was trading as a tobacconist on St Mary’s Street (Pigot & Co Directory , 1835). Within months of the publication of that directory, Bentley moved to the High Street where he had bought a property two doors away from the post office ( Stamford Borough Rate Book , 1836). He transferred his tobacco business, selling the finest Havana cigars, to the new shop, but also in March 1835 opened a glassware and crockery business on the same premises ( SM , 20.3.1835). The business seemed to prosper as Bentley regularly advertised his wares in the Stamford Mercury , but later in 1836 a curious advertisement appeared regarding the sale of shares in Reeth Consolidated Mining Company, a copper-mining company in Cornwall, stating that those wishing to buy shares should apply to J F Bentley ( SM , 30.9.1836). Is it possible that Bentley was also an investor? A year later, it was discovered that the managers of the mining company had issued a fraudulent prospectus and subsequently the shareholders lost their money. It may be a coincidence, but in 1837 Bentley discontinued his glass, china, and earthenware business, auctioned his stock at the Assembly Rooms, and advertised his property on the High Street to be let or purchased ( SM , 21.7.1837). Soon after the demise of his business John pushed for the formation of a scientific and literary society in Stamford, either because he wanted access to more information for himself or because he was driven to provide knowledge to a wider audience. The latter is more likely the case as is evidenced in his later life. Despite knowing that John spent a lifetime acquiring an extraordinary range of knowledge in science and nature through self-learning, the catalyst for this educational drive is unknown. Was he a star pupil at Bourne with a thirst for knowledge? Did he borrow books from Mr Rooe’s subscription library on the High Street? After the Stamford Institution was formed and its first home was established in Broad Street in 1838, John Bentley became its honorary secretary, taking over from Thomas Fricker who had always intended to stand down. Although Eaton, Cayley brought John back into the bank and provided him with an income it is possible that he resided at the Institute’s premises for at least eight years: at Broad Street (1841 Census) and on St Peter’s Hill (White’s Directory , 1846). Fig 1. First Stamford Institution site at 49 Broad Street (right) Fig 2. Stamford Institution, St Peter's Hill In 1840, Samuel Sharp, the stepson of Richard Newcomb, was elected to the committee of the Stamford Institution and became a close friend of John Bentley, especially in the field of geology. By 1842, Sharp had given up the idea of succeeding Newcomb as proprietor of the Stamford Mercury , instead taking over the bookshop and subscription library of Matthew Rooe, and later becoming an important Stamford geologist and antiquary. Evidence of John Bentley’s attained knowledge, his wish to absorb more current thinking, and his self-confidence came in 1844 when, either as a representative of the Stamford Institution or in a personal capacity, he attended the annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in York ( Yorkshire Gazette , 28.9.1844). This prestigious association was formed in 1831 with the objectives of acquiring scientific knowledge, disseminating it through discussion, and furthering science by removing obstacles to progress. The BAAS met annually, for almost a week, at different British locations where papers were read, presentations given and debates held. Whilst John had some credibility as the Honorary Secretary of the Stamford Institution he was in the presence of, and certainly not equal to, a heady mix of the cream of British and European science. These noblemen, doctors, British and overseas professors, Fellows of various societies, together with amateurs interested in science, attended the various lectures split into four distinct groups, each with its own committee : Physics (including Mathematics), Chemistry, Geology, and Natural History ( Old England , 8.7.1832). On those committees sat some of the greats of British science, mathematician Babbage, astronomer Herschel, chemist Faraday and naturalist Darwin. Fig 3. Schönbein (left) and Faraday (right) at 1846 BAAS conference Bentley continued to attend these gatherings until 1850 when the conference in Edinburgh was his last (Reports of the Annual Conference of the BAAS, online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ ). In Southampton, for the 1846 conference, Bentley was expecting to see Professor Schönbein of Basle demonstrate his, as yet unpatented, gun-cotton. The opening of this conference, attended by eight hundred persons, on Thursday 10 September was graced by the presence of Prince Albert who had sailed across from Osborne House. After the formal proceedings, the prince was introduced to Prof Sch önbein who privately demonstrated his gun-cotton by exploding some in the hand of Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary ( Hampshire Advertiser , 12.9.1846). John had to wait until the following Tuesday to see this for himself, but Prof Schönbein did not appear, as he was in London trying to patent his invention. In his place, W R Groves Esq demonstrated a sample of the new explosive material, although the process of manufacturing the gun-cotton remained vague pending patent approval. On returning to Stamford, John recreated his own version, and gave a demonstration which was witnessed by the Stamford Mercury . The paper commented that Bentley “… (whose self-acquired knowledge of the principles of chemistry is as honorable [sic] to him as it is interesting to those who have the advantage of his acquaintance) …” had been experimenting and succeeded in mixing proportions of sulphuric and nitric acids to coat the cotton so that, once dried and lit, it exploded with a greater force than gunpowder and without giving off smoke or leaving a residue ( SM , 6.11.1846). He was not the only scientist in Britain or Europe that succeeded in such replication, but John pleaded in the Stamford Mercury article that Prof Sc hön bein be credited as the originator of the idea. Another of John Bentley’s interests, which he shared with Samuel Sharp, was fossil collecting and he would regularly visit the quarries around Stamford, especially those at Ketton and Collyweston. It was at a slate quarry in Collyweston that he discovered the fossil of a rare gastropod which was unique to the area. In 1851, the famous geologist John Morris and pal æ ontologist John Lyell registered the fossil’s name as Phyllocheilus Bentleyi , after its discoverer. In their later publication Morris and Lyell said that the name of the Collyweston gastropod “is complimented to J F Bentley Esq of Stamford who has enriched our knowledge of the fossils of that locality” ( A monograph of the Mollusca from the Great Oolite , p.15). Later variations were named Pteroceras Bentleyi and Malaptera Bentleyi . Fig 4. Phyllocheilus Bentleyi fossil The census of 1851 shows that John was no longer living at the Institution, but in Bath Row, next door to the public bath (probably no. 15), with one servant and with the stated occupation of bank cashier. Later that year the Great Exhibition was opened in London, housed in the Great Shalimar, a purpose-designed building erected by Brunel (later removed and renamed Crystal Palace). Six million people visited the Great Exhibition during the six months it was open, with towns all over the country running special excursions to satisfy the interest. Amongst its exhibitions was an “exceedingly fine specimen of honey in its comb” by Mr J F Bentley of Stamford ( SM , 13.6.1851). Whilst the breadth of John’s interests seemed to know no bounds, he was also a generous man with both his time and money. In 1836, he donated to the repair fund for the re-building of St Michael’s church and in 1853 for the repairs and re-pewing of All Saint’s church. Later in 1853 he was appointed as joint auditor of the Stamford Burial Board together with his friend Robert Sandall. To the Stamford Institution he presented two maps (1854), and two glass cases of stuffed birds (1860). This was in addition to the numerous presentations he gave to the Stamford Institution and to other societies in later life. Fig 5. Oxy-Hydrogen Microscope In 1856, after eighteen years of service as Honorary Secretary to the Stamford Institution, John Bentley decided to resign . During those years, he had organised meetings and talks, sought donations of books and artefacts, and given lectures to its members. His tenure was greatly appreciated and the committee arranged for a testimonial where he was presented with an oxy-hydrogen microscope ( SM , 4.1.1856). These microscopes enabled objects to be magnified up to two million times and displayed on a wall or screen, enabling John to present his collection to a wider audience. Bentley was then a forty-five-year-old bachelor, and after leaving his honorary position he remained an active member of the Institution, being elected to its committee in 1859, where he continued to influence the society, as he had done since its formation. In Stamford, John would have known Richard Yates, either through the bank, the Institution, or by visiting Yates’s draper’s shop next to the Portico on the High Street. In 1860, Richard’s wife died in childbirth at the age of twenty-nine, and a year later Richard married Anne Lovell in her parent’s town of Wells, Somerset. Anne’s sister Emma was a draper’s assistant, and it is possible that Anne, with similar skills, had been recruited to work at Yates’s draper’s shop where her relationship with Richard grew. Bentley’s possible connection with Richard Yates may have influenced his later life. In 1863, Bentley’s station in society moved up a gear. The Midland Banking Company (not to be confused with the Midland Bank) was expanding and J F Bentley Esq was appointed manager of its Peterborough branch together with its satellite branch in Ironmonger Street, Stamford ( SM , 25.12.1863). This was ideal for John who, although having moved to Peterborough where he lived at the bank’s premises at 25 Long Causeway, continued to have strong social links to Stamford. Bentley’s mind was always active and his drive consistent. In 1868, he applied for a patent for “improvements in the mode of sinking or forming wells and in the apparatus to be used therefor, part of which improvements are also applicable for the sinking of cylinders or caissons for other purposes” ( London Gazette , 20.4.1869). Later that year, at a meeting of the Peterborough Agricultural Society John demonstrated another invention, a portable steam engine water filter, that he had patented a few months earlier. Within a year a company, Coulson & Wear on Wharf Road, Stamford, was advertising ‘Bentley’s patented water filter’ as sole agent ( SM , 15.3.1870). Also in 1869, Richard Yates, the draper, died leaving his wife Anne as a widow and son Richard Lovell Yates without a father. Anne subsequently moved to Rose Cottage in Tinwell. Behind the scenes in Peterborough, John must have been working to form a new society, as in May 1871 the Peterborough Natural History and Field Club (later the Peterborough Natural History and Archaeological Society, and now the Peterborough Museum Society) was founded, and Bentley became its first president. Besides John Bentley, the other founders may have included Dr Thomas Walker, a Peterborough surgeon and past secretary of the British Archaeological Association, and Henry English who was appointed as the society’s first honorary secretary. Another person linked to the early days of the society, and whose name remains most associated with it, is John William Bodger. When the society was formed Bodger had just turned fifteen and was little over a year into his chemist apprenticeship. In the autumn of 1873, he replaced Henry English as honorary secretary and soon after also became the society’s treasurer and curator, holding at least one of those positions until his death sixty-six years later. In his obituary he was credited as being “the principal mover in the founding of the Society”, however, one wonders if this was an embellishment of a revered gentleman and so-called ‘Father of the Peterborough Museum’ , almost seventy years after the event ( Peterborough Standard , 17 February 1939). Would a fifteen-year-old in the Victorian era really have pressed the likes of Bentley and Walker into founding such a society? Or, was his father, who presented a paper on “Oxford Clay” to the society in 1872, the adult driver, with his son, who was already collecting geological specimens, in tow. It must be assumed that even if not a founder the young man was one of the original members and, in Bodger, Bentley may have recognised his younger self, taken him under his wing, and supported him as the replacement honorary secretary when he was seventeen. Fig 6. Former Midland Banking Company office at Church Street In what must have been one of the society’s first field trips, members took a train to Ketton on Whit Monday 1872, and from there walked to Collyweston, Easton, Wothorpe and Burghley Park. Some visited the slate quarry at Collyweston, where Bentley had discovered his gastropod fossil, while others concentrated on the botany of the area. After the morning session they retreated to the Blue Bell Inn at Easton-on-the-Hill where they had an “excellent luncheon, kindly given by the esteemed president of the society, Mr Bentley” (SM , 24.5.1872). The afternoon session took longer than expected and the party had to cancel their proposed visit to the museum within the Stamford Institution. At the Midland Banking Company, in 1872, Bentley called for tenders to build new banking premises at the junction of Church Street and Cross Street in Peterborough ( SM , 21.6.1872). After it was completed in the spring of 1873, it also became John’s home. Between 1870 and 1875, John Bentley’s workload increased dramatically due, one assumes, to his willingness to take on additional responsibilities and to those promoting his energy and skill. During this period, he seems not to have shirked any approach for his time. Besides his day job as a bank manager, covering Peterborough and Stamford, he assumed many other roles: Chaired monthly meetings as president of the Peterborough Natural History Society Committee member for the Peterborough Workman’s Exhibition Treasurer of the Peterborough Literary Society Chaired meetings of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Workers Chairman of Peterborough Gas Company Committee member of the Peterborough Science and Arts Classes Member of Peterborough Improvement Commissioners Member of Peterborough Urban Sanitary Authority On 5 February 1873, Samuel Sharp Esq, FSA, FGS presented the second part of his important paper on the “Oolites of Northamptonshire” to the Geological Society in London together with a large collection of fossils and other geological specimens ( SM , 7.3.1873). Sharp was praised for the collection by Mr Etheridge FRS, the Government pal æ ontologist, and Mr Woodward of the British Museum commented how valuable the collection was compared to others as the fossils were linked to their stratigraphical location. In reply Sharp stated that the collection was not solely his own, but also that of his friend and former co-worker Mr Bentley, of Stamford. A couple of months later on consecutive days, two significant events changed John Bentley’s personal life and shaped the town of Stamford. Firstly, on 8 May 1873, at St Clement Danes church in London, sixty-three-year-old bachelor John Bentley married thirty-year-old widow, Anne Yates of Tinwell. It is assumed that John knew Anne through her late husband Richard, but what was the motive for marriage by this confirmed and extremely busy bachelor? Was it romantic?... there were no subsequent children from the union. Or, was it a logical relationship based on mutual need? Busy John, now a pillar of society, wanting support and home management, and Anne desiring financial security and a father-figure for her nine-year-old son Richard Lovell. Secondly, a day later on 9 May 1873, at a meeting of the newly formed Stamford Freehold Land Society (SFLS), J F Bentley Esq was appointed as its president ( SM , 16.5.1873). It is possible that, as the Land Society’s first president, he was also its founder, continuing to demonstrate the leadership he had shown when instigating the Stamford Institution in 1838, and founding the Peterborough Natural History Society in 1871. The formation of the SFLS was a direct result of the impending enclosure of the Stamford open fields. It had been a long time coming and was one of the last local enclosure acts in England, receiving its Royal Assent in 1871. The fields totalling 1,700 acres ran in a semi-circle around the north of the town from Tinwell Road in the west to Deeping Road in the east. However, the enclosure did not occur until the allocation of land, the preparation of deeds and their conveyance was completed in 1875. The SFLS was formed in anticipation of the enclosure which would free up land for building domestic properties. Land societies were a form of building society: members joined for a fee and bought shares, the income from which was accumulated to buy building plots. The plots were then sub-divided and allocated to members by a ballot for priority. The advantages to its members were lower costs for the land and legal fees, and the ability to become a freeholder which secured the right to vote. Eight acres of land were allocated to St George’s church in an area called the North Fields. Although the conveyance of this land was not completed until 11 August 1875, an agreement was reached in 1874 for the SFLS to purchase the North Fields site for £220 per acre ( SM , 13.11.1974). There was some committee dissent regarding this acquisition due to the extravagant price demanded by the church and the distance from the town. However, under the chairmanship of John Bentley it was passed narrowly with a majority of eight to seven. Fig 7. Conveyance indenture for Northfield's plots An early conveyance (November 1875) for several of the plots can be seen in Fig 7, with an enlargement below it, showing the Northfields area split into 107 building plots. Over the years these plots were sold by the SFLS in what is now known as the Northfields Conservation Area and a variety of terraced houses and larger villas gradually filled the available land. Fig 8. Plot allocation on Northfield's estate After his marriage in 1873, John Bentley and his wife lived temporarily at Bank House in Peterborough. However, at the end of that year John rented Balcony House in Glinton, a substantial 17th century house, largely rebuilt in the 18th century, and now listed Grade II. The house was owned by the Giles farming family who worked the land attached to the house. This new location was convenient for John’s interests in Stamford and Peterborough, being roughly equidistant between the two. Fig 9. Balcony House, Glinton Bentley’s involvement with the SFLS, and in particular the Northfield’s development, gave him an insight into land management in that area. And, in 1876, when the heirs of James Torkington Esq decided to sell the site of a former brickyard John took the plunge and bought it at auction. In 1873, Stamford Corporation had named the rough roads around the brickyard as Recreation Road, New Cross Road and Conduit Road, bounded to the south by the already named East Street. The brickyard had ceased operating in 1874 and remained undeveloped until Bentley acquired it, knowing that it could provide housing between the new Northfield’s estate and the Eastgate entrance to the town. By 1881, two terraces (Templar’s Cottages and Woolston’s Row) and four villas had been built on the land. One of the villas (probably Merriott Cottage) was occupied by the builder Thomas Woolston, who one assumes built Woolston’s Row (1881 Census). Woolston later, in 1886, built a larger house (Laurel Villa) for himself on Recreation Road and adjacent to Woolston’s Row, but he was not a good businessman and in 1889 was adjudged bankrupt. Fig 10. Houses built on the brickyard site prior to 1881 The new buildings in the brickyard, especially Woolston’s Row, were built at a low level because of all the clay that had been removed from the site for the bricks. As a consequence, the houses were prone to flooding and in 1880 the Council was petitioned to solve this “pressing nuisance” ( SM , 3.9.1880). As the discussion between Bentley’s solicitor and the Council were held ‘in camera’ the outcome is not recorded, but in December 1880 two advertisements were placed for tenders to lay drainage pipes. One by the Council for Recreation Road and the other on behalf of Bentley for Woolston’s Row both running down to the main drain at the junction of East Steet and Eastgates. Between 1886 and 1888, and unfortunately after Bentley’s death, the roads of the old brickyard were adopted by the Corporation. One was named New Street but the other, which replaced Woolston’s Row, became Bentley Street, after its late owner J F Bentley: a lasting reminder in Stamford, even though nobody has recently been aware of the connection. Fig 11. 3-5 High Street, Leicester, after being taken over by Grand Clothing Co. The resignation by John in 1877, due to ill health, from his positions as Treasurer of the Peterborough Literary Institute and President of the Peterborough Natural History Society may have been the first sign of him slowing down. However, he was still a bank manager, active with other societies, and also a property developer in Stamford. It is not known exactly when John retired from the bank, but it probably coincided with its acquisition by the Birmingham, Dudley & District Bank in 1881. This is supported by his move away from the area in March 1882, when Balcony House was advertised to let by William Giles ( SM , 24.3.1882). The change in location away from both Stamford and Peterborough suggests that all work, public service and extramural activities had ended and that his body and mind were starting to decline. Anne and John Bentley joined Anne’s sister Emma in the centre of Leicester where Emma owned a substantial draper’s business, E Lovell & Co, at 3-5 High Street (the impressive Marlborough House). It was a large property in the heart of the city, later taken over by the Grand Clothing Hall Company (see Fig 11). On 10 February 1884, in the presence of his sister-in-law Emma, John Bentley died, and the cause of death was later given as senile decay. Anne Bentley continued to live in Leicester after John’s death, remaining close to her sister. Later she moved to Rothley, a village near Leicester, where her sister joined her, after retirement from her drapery business. It was from Anne’s Rothley residence, in 1914, that she presented an enlarged photograph of her late husband, John Flowers Bentley FLS, to the Peterborough Natural History Society. It is assumed that FLS signified his fellowship of the Linnean Society, which would make sense given his interest in nature and fossils, but the Linnean Society archivist is unable to verify his membership. The presentation photograph of John Bentley cannot be located, but it is possible that Fig 12 is a copy of the original. Fig 12. John Flowers Bentley Esq F L S © Peterborough Museum & Art Gallery Anne’s son, Richard Lovell Yates, emigrated to Australia sometime before 1889, where he married and had two sons. The first, Richard, was killed in action in Gallipoli during WWI. In what may signify more than anything about John Bentley’s character is that Richard Lovell, who was John’s stepson throughout his formative years between nine and nineteen, named his second son John Bentley Yates. John Flowers Bentley, a farmer’s son, had been involved in banking for almost sixty years, from possible apprentice to bank manager. In addition, he had been a shopkeeper, a public servant sitting on various committees, and a property developer. However, for almost his entire life he was driven by a search for knowledge across a wide range of subjects. He was a chemist, fossil collector, apiarist, geologist, naturalist, botanist and inventor: a polymath. John Bentley’s drive to acquire knowledge was matched by his wish to imbue others with that which he had learnt. This is demonstrated by his push for the Stamford Institution and the founding of the Peterborough Natural History Society, where he often shared information through presentations, at times using his testimonial oxy-hydrogen microscope. Now, in Stamford, his name lives on in the form of Bentley Street, and globally geologists know of him for the rare Bentleyi fossils. © John Daffurn 2024 A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) The Stamford Institution Previous Next

< Back Murage Tax for Repairs to the Town Wall at Stamford Chris Hunt 2023 (from transcription by Justin Simpson F.S.A.) A murage tax was granted by Edward 1st to the town bailiffs to raise moneys by the taxing of goods brought into the town to repair its walls [P.R. 28 Edward 1, m16]. The King by writ made at Rockingham Castle on the 25th April in his 28th year (1300), by the announcement of William de Langton, Lord Treasurer, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1296-1322), authorised the Bailiffs and honest men of Stamford for and towards its enclosure or walling for better security to levy (murage) toll on all goods brought therein for sale for a period of seven years next ensuing from the date hereof, viz., For every load of corn of all kinds for brewing, 1/4d. Of every horse, mare, ox or cow, 1/2d. Of every hide of a horse, mare, ox or cow, fresh, salt or tanned, 1/4d. Of every five bacon (pigs), 1/2d. Of every ten small (pigs), 1/2d. Of every ten sheep, goats, and pigs, 1d. Of every ten fleeces (of wool), 1/2d. For every one hundred skins of (bleeting) sheep, lambs, and goats, 1d. For every hundredweight of skins of lambs, kids, hares, rabbits, foxes, cats, and squirrels, 1/2d. For every hundredweight of grey (cloth) work, 6d. Every quarter of salt, 1/4d. Every load of cloth, 1/2d. Every entire (piece of) cloth of the value of 40 shillings, 1/2d. Every trussell (or roll) of cloth brought by a cart, 3d. Every hundredweight of worsted cloth, 2d. Every cloth of worsted called coverlet and worth 40 shillings, 1d. Every hundredweight of linen woll, 1/2d. Every hundredweight of linen woll of Aylesham, 1d. Every piece of fine Cendallo (silken cloth), 1d, and of other (kind of) silk, 1/4d. Every hundredweight of salt stock fish, or hard fish, 2d. Every cart load of sea fish, 1/4d; and every load of the same, 1/2d. Every salmon, 1/4d. Every dozen of lamphreys, 1d. Every thousand of herrings, 1/4d. Every load of cinders or ashes, 1/2d. Every load of honey, 1d. Every sack of woll, 2d. Every load of tan, to be sold by the week, 1d. Merchandize weighing a hundredweight, 1d. Of every weigh (168 lbs.) of tallow and ointment, 1d. Of every quarter wayde (?), 2d. Of every two thousand of garlic or onions, 1/2d. Every bale Cordwain (Cordovan leather), 3d. Every hundredweight of boards, 1/2d. Every mola (? millstone – see below), 1/2d. Every hundredweight of faggots, 1/4d. Every thousands of turfs, 1/4d. Cart load of wood or timber by the week, 1/2d. Hundredweight of tin, brass, or copper, 2d. Every trussell of whatever merchandize to be sold exceeding the value ten shillings, 1/2d. And for every trussell merchandize not (herein) named exceeding five shillings or more, 1/4d. Transcribed by Justin Simpson F.S.A. Notes Justin Simpson 1833-1896, was very much an antiquarian of his time, he was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and was a prolific writer of articles which appeared in local and regional papers, and in learned journals, many of these articles related to Stamford. Glossary cordwain – leather for shoes etc., lamphreys – a fish of the genus Petromyzon, mola – salt-cake or millstone (salt was needed to tan leather), murage – a toll or tax levied for the building or repairing a town wall(s), tan – oak bark, trussell – a bundle, turf - peat A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) John Daffurn 2023 On 22 March 1842, a large crowd gathered in the sunshine outside of the Stamford Institution in Broad Street. Together with the great and good of the town they eagerly awaited the arrival of the Marquess of Exeter accompanied by his sons, the Lords Burghley and Brownlow. The Stamford Institution had been formed four years earlier and the Marquess, as patron of the Institution, was due to lay the foundation stone for a new purposely designed building on St Peter’s Hill. A procession lined up, headed by a banner and a band, and followed by; the architect (Bryan Browning) and the builder (Moses Peal); the Marquess and the mayor (Joseph Phillips); the president of the Institution (Dr W L Hopkinson) and the vicar of All Saints church (Rev N Walters); followed by a group of clergy, magistrates, aldermen, burgesses, councillors and members of the Institution ( Lincolnshire Chronicle , 25.3.1842 [ LC ]). Amongst the latter assortment were Councillor Richard Newcomb and Alderman Thomas Mills, who feature below. The foundation-laying party left Broad Street and processed down Ironmonger Street, along the High Street, across Red Lion Square and up All Saint’s Street to St Peter’s Hill. On arrival the band played, and a local choir sang, the National Anthem before the proceedings were opened with prayers from Rev Walters. The foundation stone was duly laid by the Marquess, during which the bronze trowel snapped, and Dr Hopkinson spoke to the assembled crowd. It is not reported how many speeches took place, but the only two reported were those of Dr Hopkinson and Richard Newcomb, the latter of which was unplanned by the organising committee. Newcomb, by 1842, was firmly in the Radical camp and an adversary of the Cecil family and this was alluded to in his speech which hijacked the occasion. In it he mentioned that “although it [Stamford Institution] had secured very high patronage it was originally projected and established by those who did not occupy the highest stations in life — by two or three individuals whom it would be perhaps invidious to name” ( LC , 25.3.1842). A following column in the Lincolnshire Chronicle of the same date commented that the event had passed off satisfactorily “…except the tainted address of an orator whose speech seemed combined of a desire to avail himself of the opportunity to show off…”; an obvious dig at Newcomb. The idea to create a new society began in 1837, or possibly earlier, and would have involved the two or three gentlemen alluded to by Newcomb, and may have included Newcomb himself. The idea was to provide a library, museum, and reading and lecture rooms, in order to disseminate literature, science and the arts to a wide audience. The Newcomb family had previous in this regard, as Richard’s father had set up a subscription library in his bookshop on the High Steet in January 1787, and remained its librarian until 1807. However, there appears to have been tensions leading up to the Institution’s formation in 1838 as it was reported, in May of that year, that “Almost every difficulty which naturally presented itself to the formation of this very desirable society has, we are happy to say, been overcome…” ( LC , 23.5.1838). During that month, the provisional committee convinced Dr W L Hopkinson, previously mayor of Stamford, to become President, and pressure was applied on the Town Council to call a public meeting at the Town Hall. It was at that meeting on 5 June that resolutions were passed, and officers and members of the provisional committee were named. The committee included Richard Newcomb, Alderman Mills and John Bentley, a bank cashier who was named at the meeting as one of the originators ( Stamford Mercury, 8.5.1838 [ SM ]). In the following months, the development of the nascent Institution was reported in every detail in the Lincolnshire Chronicle , but not in Newcomb’s Stamford Mercury , and later, in 1838, Newcomb’s name no longer featured as a member of the committee. Furthermore, Newcomb’s name was conspicuously absent on the published list of donations, suggesting a falling out over the way forward. At the beginning of November 1838, the committee proudly announced that they had taken over a property in Broad Street which would shortly be ready as the home of the Stamford Institution ( LC , 2.11.1838). The address of this property can now be revealed as 49 Broad Street (currently part of Barclays Bank). The 1841 census named Thomas Blades as caretaker, a position he continued after the move to St Peter’s Hill. Also residing in the building in 1841 was John Bentley, the committee member mentioned above. Nevertheless, the identity of the building remained elusive, until its use or occupants were traced backwards and forwards from 1838, the detail of which is included in the Appendix below. 49 Broad Street (far right) The building was built in 1770 by John Truman (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, The Town of Stamford, [148]) and it is through the Truman family that the trail in the appendix begins. However, within the one-hundred-year search for the occupants of the Broad Street building other information has been uncovered. The property had been used as a school for many years, but in 1829 the property became empty when Mr Gilbert failed to take over the school from Mr Wragge, despite an advertisement to the contrary (Appendix, 1828 ). By 1830, the property had been taken over by a new, Tory leaning newspaper, the Bee , which some say was financed by the Marquess of Exeter. Its editor was Thomas Fernandez Clarke, previously with Farley’s Bristol Journal, who took up residence in the building, which also housed the printing presses. Although the editor’s name was known and published, the identity of the proprietor/publisher was more circumspect. However, hidden in one of the endnotes of Newton and Smith’s history of the Stamford Mercury (Newton, 153) is a reference to an article which provides a clue. The article describes Mr Mills of the Town Council as “a principal proprietor of the late newspaper called the Bee ” (SM, 14.10.1836), but the subject matter of the piece is also important as it refers to a major disagreement, and turmoil, at an earlier Town Council meeting. This throws some light on Newcomb’s later antipathy for the Institution and his unplanned speech at the laying of the foundation stone. The opening sentences of the piece highlight the indignation of the Mercury and therefore Newcomb: The rancour and desperation of the Tories have rarely been more exemplified than in the following paragraph, which appeared in the English Chronicle (London paper) of Tuesday last: “The Town Council of Stamford have passed a vote of censure on the conduct of Mr. Newcomb, a Councillor, and most ultra Radical, for his factious conduct at their meetings; and they have designated its general tenour as ‘ungentlemanly and unbecoming.’— Lincolnshire Chronicle.” No such false statement, we believe, has appeared in the Lincolnshire Chronicle… The so-called vote of censure relates to the Town Council meeting of 1 October ( SM , 7.10.1836) which was reported in detail. In short, it involved the inability of the mayor, Dr Hopkinson, to control the meeting called to elect Aldermen for each ward. The meeting descended into farce when Newcomb referred to the mayor as Dr Hopkinson instead of His Worship, to which Hopkinson took offence and eventually stated “I throw my gown from my shoulders, and cease to be mayor”. Hopkinson then resumed the chair without his gown and was immediately baited by Newcomb who referred to him as “Dr Hopkinson or Mr late Mayor” which caused uproar. This in turn led to a motion from Alderman Mills, a Tory, that Newcomb’s comments were uncourteous and unbecoming of a member of the Council. However, in contrast to the piece allegedly in the Lincolnshire Chronicle above, no vote was taken as Mills withdrew his motion. The protagonists in this spat, Hopkinson and Mills, later became key players in the formation of the Stamford Institution. Also in 1836, the Stamford Borough Rate Books, showed that Thomas Mills owned a property on Broad Street which was in the possession of Mr Secker (Appendix, 1836 ), who was running a school in the building. Mills was the same Alderman Mills who became a founding committee member of the Stamford Institution and when the new society needed accommodation his building, following the departure of Secker, was empty and available. Once the Institution had moved to its permanent home in 1842 the property reverted to its former use as a school, until eventually it became part of the Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company, latterly Barclays Bank, which closed permanently in April 2023. 49 Broad Street in 2023 Appendix The occupants and uses of 49 Broad Street 1798 . Approximate date of school run by the Misses Atkins and Winter, from Atkins death announcement ( SM , 19.12.1823). See also 1811 ii), below. 1799. Advertisement for the freehold sale of “a house in the Beast Market, well situated for a boarding house for young ladies” ( SM, 5.4.1799). It states to enquire of Mr Truman [Thomas, the son of John Truman], St Martin’s. 1801. Advertisement for a school to be opened in January by C Bibbing ( SM , 26.12.1800). No address given. See 1806 ii) below. 1806. i) Several advertisements throughout 1806 for the sale of a freehold house in the Beast Market, stating reply to Mr Truman, St Martin’s. The last being in September ( SM , 5.9.1806). This suggests property not sold in 1799. ii) Advertisement for Wm Meadow’s school in the Beast Market mentioning Bibbing as previous tenant ( SM , 12.12.1806). 1809. Property still for sale by Truman. 1811. i) Advertisement for the freehold sale of house in the Beast Market, formerly a boarding school. Reply to Mrs Burns, St Martin’s ( SM , 18.10.1811). This relates to Ann Burns née Truman, the daughter of John Truman who bequeathed a property in the parish of St Michael’s to her and her sister. ii) Advertisement for an auction to be held at the house of the late Thomas Truman, of a freehold property in the Beast Market “formerly used as a boarding-school for young ladies; late in the tenure of Misses Atkin(sic) and Winter” ( SM , 27.12.1811). It is assumed that the property was finally sold at this auction, probably to Thomas Mills as an investment. 1812. Advertisement for a Classical and Commercial Academy to be opened in the Beast Market by T A Jones ( SM , 3.4.1812). 1814. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by T A Jones has been taken over by the Rev W Lancaster ( SM , 23.5.1814). 1819. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by the Rev W lancaster has been taken over by J Russell ( SM , 23.4.1819) 1825. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by J Russell has been taken over by Mr Wragge ( SM , 2.7.1825). 1828. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by Mr Wragge has been taken over by Mr Gilbert ( SM , 24.10.1828). 1829. It appears that Mr Gilbert did not take up the running of the academy. 1830. The Bee is using the house as an office, for printing and as accommodation for Mr Clarke, editor (see 1833 below). 1833. The Bee closes down, Clarke’s furniture is auctioned, the printing equipment is sold and the building is advertised as a property “well adapted for a boarding school” ( SM , 3.5.1833). 1835. Secker takes over school ( SM , 8.5.1835). 1836. Thos. Mills is listed in 1836 Stamford Rate Assessment as owning a house in Broad Street with Secker as a tenant ( http://stamfordlocalhistorysociety.org.uk/rate-book-1836 ). 1837. Secker leaves ( SM , 7.4.1837). 1838. Becomes the home of Stamford Institution (see 1843 below). 1842. Stamford Institution moves to St Peter’s Hill. 1843. Advertisement for Classical and Commercial School opened by J Bartram in building ”lately occupied by the Stamford Institution” ( LC , 13.1.1843). 1845. Advertisement for Broad Street Academy run by Samuel Weddell “lately conducted by Mr Bartram” ( SM , 7.2.1845). 1850. Advertisement to inform that Mr Thacker will take over the Broad Street Academy from Samuel Weddell ( SM , 20.12.1850). 1853. Thacker retires through ill health. Broad Street property to be let. 1860. Joseph Smith reopens Broad Street Academy ( SM , 20.7.1860). 1864. People’s Institute was opened on site previously used as an academy ( LC , 5.11.1864). 1875. By this time the People’s Institute is closed ( SM , 11.6.1875). 1881. The 1881 census includes 49 Broad Street as part of a bank. However, the building must have been let in later years, in particular to Kelham & Son, solicitors, who occupied at least part of the building for much of the first half of the twentieth century. © 2023 John Daffurn A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath The Stamford Institution Previous Next

< Back October 31st 1940 – The Luftwaffe Comes to Stamford Chris Hunt 2021 Today St Leonard’s Street is a quiet part of the town, far enough away from the High Street and Wharf Road to get little or no traffic, other than motorists trying to find a parking space. However, on Thursday October 31st 1940 the War came to this area when a large bomb which was reported at the time to have weighed close to a ton fell on Cornstall Buildings. A low flying lone German plane, possible a Heinkel 111, dropped a bomb which took off the roofs and chimney stacks of No 2 and 3 Cornstall Buildings before passing through No 17 Cornstall Buildings and demolishing a coal shed at the rear of the property. One side of the house had gone and there was a hole above the front door where the bomb had hit the building. Luckily the bomb did not explode. The occupier of No 17, Mrs Elsie Griffiths and her daughter Doreen had a very lucky escape as although in the house at the time sitting on the sofa, it was however reported that if they had been standing they would not have been so lucky. Immediately the emergency services were on hand to clear the area., which stretched from Maiden Lane to Brazenose Lane, and from St Paul’s Street to Wharf Road. Stamford School could only be accessed from Elm Street. The plane had come from the general direction of Wothorpe, spraying bullets over the Town before dropping the bomb. It was suggested at the time that the pilot had been aiming for the gas works which was only a hundred yards away on Wharf Road. The Town Council erected market stalls on Ironmonger Street so that those shopkeepers who had had to close their shops could continue trading, allowing their ‘registered customers’ to buy their rations. People evacuated from their houses found refuge in relatives and friends house across the town and others were found accommodation, bedding and food was provided from reserve stores held at the Fane School. Payments were made to householders under the Government Evacuation Scheme and those who had left their ration cards in their homes were issued with emergency ones from the Town Hall, and supplies of second-hand clothing was made available to those in need. The local bomb disposal team at the time was based in Ketton and they began the job of making the bomb safe. It was found to have a ninety-six-hour fuse which could have resulted by the Monday of destroying a large area at the eastern end of the town. Luckily for everyone it was defused on the Sunday and people were then allowed to return to their homes. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back 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