< Back Agreement between Stamford Town Council and Little Casterton for the use of the Stamford Horse Drawn Steam Fire Engine 1904 By Chris Hunt Introduction The following transcript is from a four paged signed copy of a Legal Document between Stamford Town Council and the inhabitants of Little Casterton (Rutland). Memorandum of Agreement made this seventeenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and four. Between the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Stamford acting as the Urban District Council for the Borough of Stamford and hereinafter called the Town Council of the one part and The Parish Meeting of Little Casterton in the County of Rutland, hereinafter called the Parish Meeting of the other part. Whereas the Town Council has recently acquired from Messrs Shand Mason and Company of London a Steam Fire Engine with the necessary appliances and equipment which said Steam Fire Engine for the purposes of identity has the word “Stamford” painted thereon. And Whereas the Parish Meeting has with the consent of the County Council and in conjunction with other Parish Meetings and Parish Councils agreed to pay the Town Council a yearly contribution for the use of the said Steam Fire Engine for the purpose of extinguishing fires occurring within the district of Little Casterton aforesaid during the period hereinafter mentioned. Now it is mutually agreed as follows: - 1) The Parish Meeting will during and throughout the continuance of this agreement pay to the Treasurer for the time being of the Borough of Stamford for the use of the Town Council the yearly sum of Two Pounds six shillings and three pence without any deduction the last mentioned sum, to be paid by two equal instalments on the first day of September and the first day of March in each year during the continuance of this agreement the first of such instalments to be paid on the first day of September one thousand nine hundred and four. 2) In consideration of such payments the Town Council agrees with the Parish Meeting that at all times during the period of five years from the date hereof on demand therefore being made to the Captain Superintendent or other Officer of the Stamford Fire Brigade or upon notice given or left at the Stamford Police Station of a fire however caused happening to any house, building, stack, agricultural produce or premises within the Parish of Little Casterton, the Town Council will, except as provided by Clause 4 of these presents, with all due promptitude by day or by night cause the said Steam Fire Engine properly equipped, manned and horsed to be sent to any such house, building, stack, agricultural produce or premises for the purpose of extinguishing or dealing with such fire. 3) NO charge or payment of any kind so ever shall be made or paid to the Town Council by the occupier of the premises where the fire occupier of the premises where the fire occurs or at which the said Engine shall be used or employed for the use of such Steam Fire Engine, but such occupier shall be liable to pay to the Town Council the reasonable and proper charges of the Brigade for their attendance and service at such fire and for the use of the horses employed in drawing the Engine from Stamford to the scene of the Fire and home again and the damage done to any hose or other appliance not forming part of the equipment of the said Engine. 4) Provided always that the liability upon the Town Council to supply the said engine aforesaid shall be suspended in all cases where owing to a prior call or claim (either in or out of the Borough) the Engine for the purposes of extinguishing or dealing with a fire have been taken or sent into another Parish with whose Parish Council or Parish Meeting the Town Council shall have entered into an agreement similar in all respects to these presents. No pecuniary liability shall rest upon or be incurred by the Town Council for any delay in despatching the said Engine to any fire nor shall the Town Council be called upon to make compensation for any damage which may arise from any cause whatever in connection with the despatching of the said Engine. 5) The Town Council will cause the said Engine at all times to be kept in a thorough state of repair and if the Engine shall at any time during the said period of 5 years become disabled or useless, the Town Council will forthwith hire another Engine pending the reparation of the said Engine, and the terms and conditions therein contained shall be applicable to the Engine so hired. 6) In case the said sum hereby agreed to be paid as aforesaid or any part or instalment thereof shall remain unpaid for 28 days next after the day fixed for the payment thereof it shall be lawful for but not obligatory upon the Town Council by notice in writing signed by the Town Clerk and directed to and served upon the Clerk to the said Parish Meeting to determine and put an end to this agreement and from and after the giving of such notice the respective rights and liabilities of the parties hereto shall cease and determine. The power hereby given to the Town Council shall be ancillary to their remedy for recovery by action at law of the said sum or any part thereof payable by the Parish Meeting as aforesaid and it shall be at the option of the Town Council either to exercise the power hereby given of determining this agreement or of proceeding by action for recovery of the said sum or any part thereof as this Town Council shall decide. 7) At the expiration of the said period of 5 years or upon the determination of this agreement the Parish Meeting shall have no claim upon the Town Council in respect of the subject matter of this Agreement nor to any matter or thing herein contained or referred to. 8) If any dispute or difference shall arise between the Town Council and the Parish Meeting touching any of the matters contained in this agreement such dispute or difference shall be referred to two justices of the Borough (not being members of the Town Council) whose decision shall be final and binding upon all parties. 9) The said Steam Fire Engine shall be and remain the absolute property of the Town Council. In Witness whereof the Common Seal of the Town Council was hereunto affixed and the Presiding Chairman and two Members of the Parish Meeting at a meeting of the said Parish Meeting have hereunto set their hands and seals as the act of the Parish Meeting. Testing the Shand Mason Horse Drawn Steam Fire Engine at Bath Row on March 28th 1904. Notes. 1) The above document had the Common Seal of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Stamford affixed at a Meeting of the Town Council, on February 6 th 1905 in the presence of George Higgs, Mayor of Stamford. The original document was countersigned and sealed by Charles Ormston Eaton, the Presiding Chairman of the Parish Meeting of Little Casterton, and by Mr Arthur Templeman and Mr Albert Broughton, two of the Members of the Parish Meeting, at a Parish Meeting held on December 17 th 1904 in the presence of Mr Henry Green. 2) The Town Council at this time offered villages around Stamford the opportunity to make legally binding agreements, for the use of the town’s fire-fighting equipment. This was made more possible as a result of the Town acquiring a second Messrs Shand Mason and Co. horse drawn steam fire engine in 1904. 3) The Mayor, Mr George Higgs (1852-1918) was a merchant of multiple shops in the East Midlands operating as a wholesaler and retailer, selling tobacco, briars, cigars and cigarettes and tobacconists’ sundries. starting with a tobacconist shop on St John’s Street in Stamford. By the turn of the century, he had expanded his business with shops in Newark, Nottingham, Sleaford, and three in Lincoln. He was a Kesteven County Councillor and served on several Committees and Charities within the town. His wife was a descendant of Sir Isaac Newton in the female line. 4) Charles Ormston Eaton (1827-1907) lived at Tolethorpe Hall. Born at Ketton Hall, he attended Harrow School and graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge. He was a director of the Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Bank which after his death became part of Barclays Bank in 1911. He purchased the site for the Roman Catholic Church of St Mary and St Augustine in Stamford, assisted in financing its building and paid for the organ. Chris Hunt December 2025 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Bridge Gate at Stamford and John Frammesley Chris Hunt 2023 The date of the establishment of the final line of Stamford’s town walls is not known, so far archaeology has not provided us with an answer. And although surviving murage grants for the building or repair of a defensive wall exist between 1261 and 1352. Such grants do not provide us with the line of the town wall. Further uncertainty is raised as to the date of the completion of the first bridge over the River Welland on the St Martin’s High Street – St Mary’s Hill axis. A date post 1086 seemingly most likely, and even then the dog legged route of the Great North Road could have skirted the Danish Burg before the construction of the Town Wall and thus even after this road alignment would have not needed a Bridge Gate. The river with the bridge and its gate at Stamford provided a defensive pinch point on the main road through Stamford. The gate also served other purposes, for by the late Middle Ages a room above it was used as a meeting place almost certainly linked to a Guild and where the town’s Alderman and Burgesses met in a Common Hall. Also, by this date the town’s gaol adjoined it on the west side. The Bridge Gate carried on these functions until its demolition in the late 1770’s and the construction of the present Town Hall on St Mary’s Hill. It could be said that the most famous English bridge from the medieval period was London Bridge over the River Thames, with its gate, drawbridge, chapel and shops. This was the site where the heads of traitors were displayed to remind the populace and visitors to the City that they should remain loyal to the monarch. Such judicial executions were finally formulated through the Treason Act of 1351/52. A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they: Planned or imagined, the death of the king, his wife or his eldest son and heir. Violate the king's companion, the king's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the king's eldest son and heir. Commit war against the king in his realm. Adhered to the king's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or elsewhere. Counterfeiting the Great Seal, or the Privy Seal. Counterfeiting English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage. Killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, one of the king's justices, a justice in eyre, an assize judge, and Justices, while performing their offices. The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, very much serving as a warning to others. It was common for the “quarters” to be sent to either major cities or towns which were seen as perhaps not totally loyal to the monarch. In March 1450 rebellion was in the English air and to defuse the situation King Henry VIth banished the Duke of Suffolk for five years. This was seen by some as a signal that this would herald the end of Henry’s regime and was an impetus for the London mob to take to the streets. As a result on March 21st 1450 there was an abortive rising, John Frammesley, a London vintner’s servant, was accused of sedition and treason and was arrested for chanting in the streets a rhyme picked up by the populace:- “By this town, by this town, For this array, the king shall lose his crown.” This was enough for Frammesley to be hung, drawn and quartered. His head was placed on London Bridge along with other traitors. The King’s Council in June 1451 sent one of his “quarters” to Stamford to be placed on the Bridge Gate, which quarter is not recorded. So why Stamford? The reason of course has not survived. It might just simple be that the town being on the Great North Road was a place where plenty of travellers would have seen John Frammesley’s remains and been reminded of the danger of rebellion. Another reason could be that Stamford was a seen as a potential source of trouble. After all it was part of the estate of Richard Duke of York whose death later propelled his son Edward to the Battle of Towton and the Crown. Of course we shall never know. So when you next cross the town bridge remember that the remains of a traitor were displayed above the entrance to the town. Chris Hunt, February 2023 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 King in Stamford Baron Professor Alan Rogers 2012 The following notes are taken from the Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council vol vii pages 227-229 At Collyweston[1] the vth day of August [1541], being present the Duke of Suffolk, the Lord Privey Seale, the Gret Chambrelain of Englande, the Gret Admiral of Englande, the Bisshop of Duresme [Durham], the Tresorer of [the Royal] Household, the Comptroller of Household, the Master of the Horse, the Vice-chambrelain, Sir Thomas Wriothesley Secretary, the Chauncelour of th’Augmentacions. Wheras the King’s Majestie, being at this tyme in his progresse towards his Highnes cyty of York, myndeth to passe thorough his towne of Stamforde, being th’Alderman and th’inhabitaunts therof warned and demaunded of their libertyes, there hath arrisen matyer of contencion touching the same betwene the Shiriff of Northamptonshire, th’Alderman of the said towne and the Bailiff of the libertyes of Peterborough, that is to say, how farre every of the libertyes aforsaid do extende and shuld be used and how every of the said Shirif, Baillif of libertyes and Alderman shall gyve their attendaunce on his Majestie passing through the parishe of St Marten on this side the bridge, standing upon the water of Weylande and as it shulde appere in the county of Northampton, the said Shiriff clayming to cary the white rodde before the King’s Majestie untill the fote of the said bridge on this syde of the said water, alledging that neyther th’Alderman of the towne, nor the Baillif of the libertyes ought to beare any mace or other thing before the King’s Majestie till his Highnes’ arryvall at the said place of the bridge; the Baillif of the libertyes clayming th’office of the said Shiriff within the precincte of the saide libertyes, that is from th’entre into St Martyn’s parishe unto the saide place of the bridge t’apperteyn unto him onely and not to the Shirif of the shire; th’Alderman of the said town clayming of right to mete the King’s Majestie out of the hole towne and before his arryval in the said St Martyn’s parishe, and to cary his mase before his Majestie through the said paryshe of St Martyn’s and so thorough the rest of the towne unto th’ende of the precincte of the saide towne in Lincolnshire. The King’s Majesty and the Lords and others of his Majestie’s Privy Counsail, attending upon his moost royaull personne, considering that the Shirif is his Majestye’s principall and ordynary offycer for the county of Northampton aforsaide and that neyther the Baillif of the libertyes hath yet proved that at tyme heretofore the Baillif for the tyme being hath caryed before the King’s Majesty any rodd, nor yet the saide Alderman can shew any sufficient graunte why he shuld cary the mase before the King’s Majesty from and through the places he claymeth, hath ordeyned and decreed that for this tyme onely the Shirif shall cary before his Majesty the white rodde through the said parishe of St Martens unto the middle of the said bridge and no further; and at the fote of the bridge on th’other side the Alderman to mete his Majestie with his mase and so t’attende upon his Highness unto the furthest precincte of the said towne on the further syde of the water; and the said Baillif of the libertyes for this present to surcease and in no wise to entremedle. Which sayd ordre the King’s Majestie and his Counsail woll and ordeyn shall take place for th’avoyding onely of confusion at this tyme in attendaunce upon his Majesty and in no wise to be taken or interpreted herafter eyther to the prejudice of any of the titles of the said Alderman and Bailliff, which any of them shal be able herafter to shewe or declare for the mayntenaunce of their claymes touching the carying of the said mase or rodd or of any other matyer which they shal herafter alledge, being mayntenable or to th’enlarging of th’authority of the Shiriff otherwise then herafter shalbe determyned. Provided alway that notwithstanding the saide ordre all and every th’inhabitaunts of the said parishe of St Marteyn’s shal be and contynue contributours and pay towards the xvth [fifteenth][2], knyghts and burgesses’ fees[3] and all other paymets, and do all and every such other thing and things with th’Alderman and burgesses of the saide towne of Stamforde as the said inhabitaunts of the said parishe of St Martens have bene used to pay and do heretofore before the making of the said decree, anything in the same conteined to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. [1] at the royal palace there, a favourite place of Henry VII and Henry VIII [2] the royal taxes [3] a tax taken from time to time to pay the expenses of the members of parliament A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back Stamford in Domesday Book Dr David Roffe 2018 Stamford and District Local History Society, 15 February 2018 Introduction Thank you so much for inviting me to Stamford. It is a great delight to be back here again and to be invited to reflect on the history of the town. I first began thinking about its origins and early history in 1975. I had volunteered to work on the castle excavation directed by Christine Mahany. Many of you will remember the site. It was at the time one of the largest medieval excavations ever undertaken and certainly unprecedented in terms of a castle. The finds were quite spectacular, not that I had much to do with them: it soon became apparent, in fact by lunchtime on the first day, that I was not a natural digger. Bang went another career option. I could read Latin, though, and in the afternoon I was sent off to the office in Kings Mill House to try to make sense of the medieval documents relating to the castle and the town generally. The rest is history. Chris and I presented a synthesis of the historical and archaeological evidence for the origins and growth of Stamford at the Battle Conference in 1982. The paper was published in Anglo-Norman Studies in the following year. Much of the conclusions was based on the first comprehensive analysis of the Domesday account of the town. Historians had long mined the source for information, but there had never been a comprehensive analysis in terms of the later history of the lands that it describes. Tonight I shall revisit that study for the first time in 35 years. The intervening years has seen much new research in the field of Domesday studies, but I am glad to say that, by and large, our analysis has stood up well. The Domesday account of Stamford Domesday Book comes in two parts. Volume 2 is known as Little Domesday Book and describes the three eastern counties of Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. Volume 1, Great Domesday, covers the rest of the country south of the Tees and just a tiny bit of Wales. The relationship between the two parts does not concern us today. Suffice it to say that the account of Stamford occurs on folio 336d of Great Domesday. It appears at the head of the Lincolnshire folios after the account of Lincoln and is followed by Torksey and then the body of the text, the account of the lands of the tenants-in-chief, substantially the barons of the shire. It is written in Latin, but in a highly contracted form. You will notice that almost every word in the text exhibits diacriticals, that is distinctive marks that indicate the omission of letters (figure 1). This system of shorthand speeded up writing, but sometimes it is difficult to reconstruct exactly what the scribe wanted to say. Fortunately, our chap was on his best behaviour when he wrote up Stamford, for there are relatively few contractions and suspensions. We are not always so lucky, but here we can be confident of what he intended (figure 1). Figure 1: the Domesday account of Stamford The Domesday Survey Before we dive in and examine what he wrote we must first get some idea of why the Domesday survey, and Domesday Book that was compiled from its returns, was commissioned in the first place. Otherwise, we shall not be able to interpret what is recorded. You may have a vague idea from schooldays of the Domesday survey as a census. Well, it wasn't. To start with, at least half of the population is missing: there are next-to-no women mentioned in the text. More credible is the notion that Domesday was compiled as an inventory of William the Conqueror's new realm. Even so, there are still problems. William defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Why, then, did he leave it until 1086 to undertake the survey? True the Conquest was not complete until the fall of Ely in 1071, but the Domesday survey was still 15 years after. In reality the survey addressed urgent problems in 1085. England was threatened with invasion. King Cnut of Denmark had formed an alliance with Count Robert of Flanders and had mustered a fleet to conquer England. His claim to the throne was arguably stronger than William's and he must have thought that large parts of England were in one way or another sympathetic to his cause. William clearly saw Cnut as an existential threat to his rule. He was in Normandy when he heard of the imminent invasion, and acted with characteristic decisiveness. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that he crossed the channel with the largest force of mercenaries that had ever been seen in England. Meanwhile, Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury had convened a conference and it was decided to billet the troops on landholders throughout the country. In the event for various reasons the invasion was put off until the spring of 1086 and was then abandoned after the death of Cnut. William, though, was not to know this in late 1085. He laid off some of the mercenaries over the winter, but nevertheless continued with preparations for a renewed onslaught. He ordered the coast to be wasted to deprive any invading army of sustenance. All military enterprises depended on foraging for supplies in the eleventh cent ury. Further, at his Christmas court in Gloucester he appointed trusted agents to East Anglia which, with its Anglo-Scandinavian population, was seen as a particularly exposed Achilles heel. Wulfketel at Crowland was replaced by Ingulf and Gunter was appointed to Thorney and Maurice to the see of London (with extensive estates in Essex and East Anglia, the bishopric was a key player in the east of England). All three were trusted royal priests whom William could rely upon to represent his interests and act decisively. This was the context in which the Domesday survey was commissioned. At the same Christmas court, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William ordered a survey of the king's income in land and taxes and an equally exhaustive inquiry into the income and services of his tenants- in-chief, that is the barons. It is clear that the immediate aim was to raise cash to pay the mercenaries, but there was also a determination to plan for the future. The survey began in January 1086 and seems to have been complete by late June or early July. At a meeting, 'of all those who held land in England', at Salisbury in August 1086 taxation was extended to the lord's demesne and, it seems, new quotas of knights were determined. Never again was the realm to be dependent on mercenaries for its defence or at least that was the aim. The writing of the Book All of the data that were collected were then written up in what we now know as Domesday Book. When is a matter of debate. Many insist that it was compiled as part of the 1086 programme. But it is odd that it was not a complete record of the survey: it omits much of the data. I have therefore argued that it was a later enterprise ordered by William's son, William Rufus, in 1090. In 1088 there had been a rebellion against the new king which had occasioned much tenurial chaos. Domesday Book may have been compiled to inform a settlement. Writing in 1125 or so, the Anglo-Norman historian Orderic Vitalis probably makes an oblique reference to the enterprise. However, there is no explicit mention of the Book until the early years of the reign of Henry I, so it may have been compiled anytime up to 1102. The structure of the Stamford account Whatever its date, Domesday Book was clearly a royal feodary, that is a work of reference drawn up to inform government of the king's interests and dues. As such, it was an abstract – most noticeably the livestock so carefully recorded in the survey was jettisoned – but it drew all its data from the survey. The sort of information we get, then, is determined by the concerns of 1086. It is thus not surprising to find that the account of Stamford is divided into two broad sections, that is the income of the king and those of his tenants-in-chief. Both are signalled by capital letters and, intermittently, by paragraphoi, that is gallows marks, for the latter (figure 1). Now, Domesday talks in terms of land, terra in Latin, but we must take care not to be misled thereby. What is mostly involved is rights over land rather than in what we would call real estate. In an urban context those rights were various. Foremost was landgabel or gafol. This was a rent, usually around a shilling a year, due from the community of the borough. This sum, however, if prominent, was not the sum total of what 'land' signified. There were also renders that Domesday generically calls consuetudines, 'customs', payments in coin and kind that represent a former food rent, and occasional labour services such as mowing on the king or lord's demesne. Then there was soca, 'soke', that included dues for the right to bake and brew as well as the amercements, fines in modern terms, that were paid in the borough court. Finally, there were tolls which were taxes on the buying, selling, and the passage of goods. Land itself, freehold to be anachronistic, generally resided in the townsmen. The king's income Having cleared the ground, we can now get down to the nitty-gritty. We first get a statement of the tax the town paid to the king (figure 2); it was assessed at 12½ hundreds. In the Danelaw the hundred was not the institution of the same name of hidated England. That was represented by the wapentake. The northern hundred was more like a vill, the unit of local government at its lowest level – think the civil parish of today – and it was rated at 12 carucates. So Stamford was assessed at 150 carucates for the geld, army and navy service, and Danegeld. The town was divided into six wards. We have no further information, but they were probably each associated with the gates of the town. That was certainly the pattern elsewhere. The ward was a unit of policing – hence watch and ward – and an association with routes into a town is common. In the later Middle Ages there were five gates north of the river in Stamford and probably a sixth in Stamford Baron. All the dues that resulted accrued to the king. It should be noted that the ward south of the river was an integral part of the town even though in Northamptonshire. There is no evidence that it was ever constituted as a separate borough. Figure 2: tax and the wards of the town Then we move onto the number of properties that owed their dues to the king – 141 and half a mill in 1066 and the same in 1086 less 5 that had been destroyed in the building of the castle (figure 3). The dues of 4 others had been taken away by Brand, whom we can identify as abbot of Peterborough. A further two belonged to a Wulfketel son of Merewine who was almost certainly the former abbot of Crowland. Figure 3: the land of the king Finally, there were 77 properties that belonged to privileged sokemen over whom the king had more limited rights, namely heriot, forfeiture, and toll alone, that is death duty, the right to land consequent to felony and the like, and, as we have seen, taxes on traded goods (figure 4). Sokemen are not usually found in towns. Indeed, this reference is all but unique in an urban context. But in status they were akin to burgesses. Both, for example, had similar inheritance customs. In Stamford throughout the Middle Ages the property of an intestate burgess passed to his youngest son rather than his eldest. Many rural sokemen were also subject to this custom which became known in English law as Borough English. Eustace of Huntingdon who took away the mill was sheriff of Huntingdonshire. He, like sheriffs in general, was a notorious despoiler of land. How he came to put his oar into Stamford is unrecorded. Figure 4: the land of the sokemen The land and income of senior townsmen and tenants-in-chief As we have seen, the second section deals with dues that did not go to the king. Lawmen come first (figure 5). Twelve in 1066 and 9 in 1086 and holding in all 51½ properties, they held with sake and soke, that is all customs apart from the ones explicitly excluded here. They were judges of the law, receptacles of local custom rather than the bewigged panjandrums of today, but it is clear from a twelfth-century text called the Leges Edwardi Confessoris that they also acted as royal agents. They were responsible for recording crimes – in Stamford in 1226 they are called coroners – and they made distraints, that is took goods as bail, for offenders to appear in court. These are functions that were later granted by charter and so we are effectively looking at a town council. Unlike in Lincoln, the lawmen are not named. We do, however, have a valuable record of the properties they held. They were substantial townsmen and in all likelihood English. Fastolf too was English, holding a single church in 1086 which was quit, that is no dues were paid to the king (figure 6). Unfortunately, there is no record of who held the church in 1086. Figure 5: lawmen Figure 6: Fastolf Then we have a series of barons who had interests in Stamford. We can best start with the 9 properties held by Leofwine in 1066 and Alfred of Lincoln in 1086, We learn from Alfred's chapter in the body of the text that these belonged to his manor of Uffington (figure 7). We have no explicit evidence of this kind for other holdings, but the later history of some indicate other connections with rural manors. We learn from the 1212 survey of Stamford that the 23 properties held by Earnwine the priest and Eadsige and then Eudo Dapifer belonged to the manor of Wakerley in Northamptonshire (figure 8). The same source indicates that the 7 properties of Azor and Gunfrid de Chocques belonged to the manor of Casewick. Edward Cild's 14 properties belonged to Witham, Sproxton, or Tickencote. Finally, there were 10 properties in Lincolnshire, that is north of the river, that belonged to Peterborough abbey. I have been unable to place them in any particular manor. Figure 7: the manor of Uffington Figure 8: properties belonging to rural manors Queen Edith's fee Contributory manors, as they are known, of this kind are a common characteristic of English towns. They have been used to indicate the territory that was assigned to boroughs. Here, though, they are few in number and so little can be made of the pattern they describe. The 70 properties held by Queen Edith, the wife of King Edward the Confessor, which are described next may superficially appear to be of the same order. In reality, however, they are of a completely different type of holding (figure 9). Domesday indicates that the fee belonged to Roteland, that is the northern part of what became Rutland in the next century. This was an ancient dowage estate of the queens of England that consisted of a number of separate manors. The value at the end of the Stamford entry clearly indicates that the 70 properties had been one of them. Thus, in 1066 Queen Edith's fee was adjacent to the borough but not part of it. As odd as it may seem, this was by no means a unique characteristic of Stamford. Most English boroughs had royal and/or comital (earl's) estates closely associated with them. What is usual here, however, it that the estate was administered by the sheriff of Nottingham as Domesday indicates at the beginning of the account of Roteland. Figure 9: Queen Edith's fee By 1086 the 70 properties had become incorporated into Lincolnshire and Stanford. The fee of Albert of Lorraine, a priest of the royal household, hints at a reason. Albert held the church of St Peter's in Stamford which is said to have belonged to the church of Hambledon (figure 10). The same point is made in a reference to Albert's land in the account of Roteland itself (figure 11). However, we know from a charter of William Rufus that Albert had been granted all the churches of Roteland. We can, then, understand that St Peter's was the church of Queen Edith's manor here in Stamford. You are all familiar with the site of the church. It was adjacent to the castle and so it is likely the castle site too was originally in Roteland. If so, the whole area was moved into Lincolnshire to bring it under the control of the sheriff of Lincoln. In the later Middle Ages the combined lands were known as 'the castle and manor of Stamford'. Figure 10: Albert of Lorraine's church St Peter Figure 11: Albert's fee in Roteland The boundary between Roteland and Lincolnshire was moved out of the town to Ermine Street to the west. Domesday Book recognizes the change by describing the Roteland portion of Stamford in a postscriptal entry in the Northamptonshire folios where it is called Portland (figure 12). The churches of St Peter's and All Saints held land there under the king. In the later Middle Ages the area, the West Field of Stamford, was known as Sundersoken which means 'estate apart'. Figure 12: Portland Stamford in the late eleventh century Well, what does all of this tell us about the town in 1086? We can start with size. The assessment at 12½ hundreds, ie 150 carucates, tells us Stamford was by far the largest settlement in south Lincolnshire in terms of the tax it paid. The number of properties might be expected to give some indication of just how big it was (figure 13). In total 405½ are recorded. But the Latin term, mansio, plural mansiones, is an unknown quantity. It is usually translated as something like messuage or tenement; I have used the more neutral 'property' advisedly. What it was definitely not was a house: in Nottingham we have a reference to 3 mansiones in which there were 11 houses (domus). So, there were probably considerably more houses in Stamford in 1086. Moreover, the account is demonstrably incomplete. Although Stamford Baron was already in existence, no details are given. The earliest survey comes from 1125 when there were 74 properties of various kinds. Many of them must have been in existence in 1086. We must, then, be careful how we interpret the figures. It has often been stated, for example, that the castle was built on the fringe of settlement since only five mansiones were destroyed. In reality, we don't know how any houses this implies and anyway we are told only about those that had rendered dues to the king. Figure 13: summary Our numbers are uncertain, but we can say something more about the physical extent of the town north of the river. We have four explicit markers. First, there is the bridge. It was on the same site as today judging from the twelfth-century structure at its south end. Second, the castle, the earliest part of the extant structure being the motte, the present bus station. Third, St Peter's church, now marked by a mound on St Peter's Hill. Finally, All Saints church – later known as All Saints in the Market – which still stands in Red Lion Square. Although somewhat better than for some towns, this is seemingly a poor yield from such a detailed survey. Fortunately, though, other markers can be deduced from the later history of the fees described. In the early thirteenth century William de Lanvalie granted the church of St Clement's to St Michael's nunnery in Stamford. William was the lord of Wakerley and the successor to Eudo Dapifer. It seems likely, then, that one of the churches that Eudo held in 1086 was St Clements. It was situated somewhere close to Barn Hill House in Scotgate – skeletons have come to light from the garden – and so it seems that the area was already developed in 1086. William is not recorded as granting any other church, so the second one held by Eudo cannot be identified. Fastolf and his church present a more difficult problem. We have no record of who held in 1086, so we cannot trace its later descent. Its status, however, may provide a clue. It was quit, so it was held in chief of the king. This profile fits Holy Trinity outside St Paul's gate. In the thirteenth century it was the only church in Stamford that had its own court, as did other lords in Stamford who held in chief of the king. Finally, there is the land held by Crowland. Abbot Ulfketil is not recorded as holding a church. By the mid twelfth century, however, the abbey held St Michael's and this church is likely to mark at least one of Ulfketil's properties. We end up with a somewhat detailed topography for such an early period. By 1086 Stamford seems to have reached the full extent of the thirteenth-century town (figure 14). There were certainly no walls at this time – they are of later construction – but it is possible that even the line of the later defences, in part or whole, was already established. It might be doubtful, though, that the town was infilled to the same degree as later. Figure 14: the thirteenth-century town Despite such riches, ranking Stamford among the 70 or so boroughs of England in 1086 remains a difficult task, not the least because different units are used from town to town. Had all of them been measured in terms of mansiones, comparison would be possible. But they aren't. Beside mansiones we also find burgenses, domus, hagae, acrae, or a combination of two or more. So it is that value to the king is the best metric of size, as imperfect as it is (figure 15). Stamford rendered in total £78 in 1086. This does not put it in the Premier League of the English boroughs recorded in Domesday Book. Lincoln, York, Norwich and, of course, London although not fully described, were altogether much bigger and richer boroughs. But Stamford was well up in the First Division. Figure 15: the value of the town Conclusion Tonight I have confined myself to the Domesday evidence. There is, of course, a lot more evidence out there (figure 16). I have not touched on the archaeology, topography, nor numismatics. However, it is Domesday that provides the framework for understanding the early history of Stamford. The most important conclusion that Chris and I reached in 1982 was that the castle perpetuated a centre of authority of long standing. Adjacent to St Peter's church, it almost certainly replaced the manor house of Queen Edith's fee. That association in its turn provided context to late ninth-century defences that we found beneath the bailey. If we are looking at one area that we can identify as the origin of the town it is here. How it relates to the rest of the town is another story and another lecture. Figure 16: archaeology ©David Roffe 2018 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Saracen’s Head Inn, Stamford: Uncovered? John Daffurn 2025 A recently posted snippet on this site (see here ) identified an unknown medieval inn included in Prof Alan Rogers’ People & Property in Medieval Stamford (838. MB 4/58). It refers to ‘le Sarsynneshed in the parish of St Mary at the Bridge Stamford’ which was being repaired in 1435. The post resonated with me as other information I had accumulated when researching for Stamford Assets had also identified a Saracen’s Head Inn. Now, with documentary evidence, it is possible to formulate a proposition regarding both the exact location of the inn and the likely date it was built. 1. The Location of the Saracen's Head 1.1 Introduction Whilst researching for Newcomb owned properties in St Mary’s parish, I came across a group of documents held by the Lincolnshire Archives (LA). Curiously the entry heading in the archive catalogue mentioned that the documents related to a building which was formerly known as the Saracen’s Head. At the time I was unable, before the publication deadline for Stamford Assets , to decipher and unravel the complex group of documents from 1663 to 1850, involving multiple buildings and parcels of land. Having revisited them, I believe it is now possible to identify the location of the inn and its owners and tenants, from 1663. 1.2 1721 Indenture – Gift from Joshua Blackwell to his son, John (LA, MISC DON 1064/6) The most detailed document in the group is a 1721 indenture setting out the terms of a gift of property in the Monday Market [now St Mary’s Place] from Joshua Blackwell to his son John, in consideration of John’s marriage to Mary Winder. The gifted property included three separate messuages or tenements ‘and all manner of Outhouses Edifices Buildings Dovehouses Barns Stables Coachhouses Yards Orchards Gardens Backsides Ways Waters Watercourses Walls Fences Easements Privileges Profits Commons Emoluments Hereditaments and Appurtenances’. This indenture also details the families (Fairchild, Kettleborough and Wright) from whom Joshua Blackwell purchased these properties, and this aids the research into the location of the old inn. One of the properties is described as having a ‘malting office’ which links to a property advertised to let in 1723 (see 1.4) and which in 1721 was tenanted by John South and Dr Charles Wilson. South had, in 1719, been the landlord of the Swan Inn [located at 15 St Mary’s Street and later called the Swan and Talbot, and then the Talbot] and was mayor of Stamford in 1722/3. The link between the Swan Inn and the malting house property is replicated in 1795 (see Sarah Broughton in 1.5). 1.3 Additional documents 1663-1721 Although the 1721 indenture does not mention the Saracen’s Head, the five earlier documents below all confirm the inn by name and relate to property acquired by Blackwell from the Fairchild family, and, by inference, the Kettleborough family. These documents all relate to ‘three lower ground rooms’ being ‘part of and belonging to a messuage or tenement called or known by or name of or sign of the Sarisons Head [also Sarizons Head]’. 1.3.1 1663 Indenture, Robert Cammock to Henry Fairchild (LA, MISC DON 1064/1) The Cammock family were well known in Stamford and had resided in St Mary’s parish since the middle of the 16th century. Robert’s father and his uncle, Edward, had both been aldermen of the Corporation of Stamford and, in 1643, Edward had carried the town mace in front of Charles I when he processed through the town. Additional information within the indenture states that a tallow chandler, Willian Algar, had occupied the property north of the Saracen’s Head and Robert Cammock also owned the building south of the inn. In 1661, Robert’s daughter, Sarah, was born and the St Mary’s parish register gives Robert’s occupation as innkeeper. A year later, Robert’s father died and, as a wealthy and important inhabitant of St Mary’s parish, it is likely that he owned both the Saracen’s Head, occupied by his son, and the property next door which was his home. Robert, his eldest son, would have inherited these buildings from his father and one scenario would be that Robert moved into his father’s house and sold or let parts such as the ‘the three lower ground rooms’ of what had become a failing inn. The indenture also describes the rooms above the lower rooms as being in the possession of William Algar and Robert Cammock. However, by 1672 these upper rooms were owned by Thomas Kettleborough (see 1.3.2) 1.3.2 1672 Indenture, Anne Fairchild to Richard, her son (LA, MISC DON 1064/2) Anne, the widow of Henry Fairchild who died in 1671, gifted the three lower rooms to her son Richard on his marriage to Susan Nelsy. At that time the lower rooms were being let to Joseph Parnham, who in 1672 married into the Fairchild family, and the upper rooms were owned by Thomas Kettleborough. 1.3.3 1674 Indenture, Richard Fairchild to Major Fairchild (LA, MISC DON 1064/3) In 1674, Richard Fairchild leased the three rooms for ‘four score and nyneteene years’ to Major Fairchild, a butcher, who one might assume was a relative. 1.3.4 1698 Quadrupartite Indenture (LA, MISC DON 1064/4) This document appears to be a tidying up of Joshua Blackwell’s property portfolio in St Mary’s parish, by acquiring the three lower ground rooms, having probably already bought the upper rooms from Thomas Kettleborough, as well as a larger property and land from Robert Wright. However, over seventy years remained on the lease in 1.3.3 above, and as Major Fairchild had died in 1690 his widow Elizabeth and daughter, also Elizabeth, inherited the lease. The four parties to the indenture were the widow and daughter of Major Fairchild, Richard Fairchild and Susan his wife, who owned the freehold, John Rogers [father-in-law of Joshua], who held the property in trust for Joshua Blackwell, and finally Joshua Blackwell himself, who was to purchase the freehold. 1.3.5 1698 Indenture, Richard Fairchild to Joshua Blackwell (LA, MISC DON 1064/5) This document conveyed the freehold to Joshua Blackwell, having concluded the lease arrangements in 1.3.4 above. The five documents above, plus the 1721 indenture, do not identify the exact location of the Saracen's Head but provide information which, when taken together wirh 1.4 (the Blackwell family) and 1.5 (documentary evidence from 1772 to 1850) below, clarifies the situation. 1.4 The Blackwell family Between 1698 and 1721 there is a paucity of documentation to assist in the location quest, but genealogical information can help. In 1686, Joshua Blackwell married Mary Rogers, the daughter of John Rogers, a doctor, who is mentioned in 1.3.4, and they would have needed a marital home. A few years before, probably in 1680, Robert Cammock died and in 1682 his daughter, Sarah, married Robert Wright. Both lived and remained in the parish of All Saints, so it is possible that Sarah inherited her father’s property in St Mary’s and sold it following her marriage, as Robert Wright and Sarah are named in 1721 as being one of the parties from whom Joshua Blackwell acquired property. The assumption is that Blackwell acquired Robert Cammock’s house and made it his home before buying the upper rooms of the Saracen’s Head from Thomas Kettleborough and the lower rooms from Richard Fairchild. He lived in the house with his wife, Mary, but in 1699, at the age of thirty-two, she died having born him five children, including his son John. In 1702, Joshua, then a widower, married Lettice Winder, a widow, and they continued to live in the same house until his death in 1727 and Lettice’s death in 1730, even though it had been gifted to his son John in 1721. When John married Mary Winder, the daughter of Lettice from her first marriage, Lettice became both his stepmother and mother-in-law. Stamford Mercury , 20 February 1724 In 1723, John Blackwell, following the death of Dr Wilson his tenant, advertised the house with the malting office to let (Stamford Mercury [SM], 6 June 1723) and a 1724 advertisement for the same property mentions it having a coach house and stable for seven horses. After the death of his father and stepmother, John Blackwell demolished his large house and built in its place what is now 2 St Mary's Place. A few years later he extended the house which became 3 St Mary’s Place. One is now able to realise that the location for the Saracen’s Head is the property north of Blackwell's home – 1 St. Mary's Place. When John Blackwell died in 1770, he left a detailed will bequeathing a house tenanted by Dr Jackson, to Miss Eleanor Peart, and his main residence to his son Thomas Blackwell, the rector of St Clement Danes, London. However, in a subsequent codicil, his will was amended to leave both properties to Peart. Thereafter, the trail of 1 St Mary's Place, and therefore the site of the Saracen's Head, is well documented. 1.5 Documents and other information for 1 St Mary’s Place, 1770 to 1919. 1 St Mary's Place The death of John Blackwell triggered the sale of the building that was previously the Saracen’s Head and from that date documentary evidence exists for the ownership of the property until 1919, when it appeared in an auction catalogue as 1 St Mary’s Place. Eleanor Peart, the grandniece of John Blackwell, inherited his two houses and proceeded to sell them both. No. 1 St Mary’s Place was sold in 1771 to John Hays (LA, MISC DON 1064/9) for £220, and in 1773 the large house was sold to Edward Nott. In 1790, Abel Walford Bellairs bought the large property (2/3 St Mary’s Place) and in 1793 bought No. 1 from John Hays for £336. This latter deal appears to be a mechanism to enhance the Bellairs’ larger property next door, as in 1795 he sold it on to Sarah Broughton for £315, after carving out some of the land at the rear. The indenture stated that Bellairs was selling the house ‘except such part of the premises as have been lately taken into the yard and premises of the said Abel Walford Bellairs and then divided therefrom by the fence wall and buildings of and belonging to him the said Abel Walford Bellairs’ (LA, MISC DON 1064/10b). When Sarah Broughton bought 1 St Mary’s Place, she was still the landlady of the Swan and Talbot Inn (previously the Swan Inn run by John South in 1719). Sarah Broughton retired in 1795 and moved permanently into 1 St Mary’s Place (SM, 17 April 1795). Over the years 1 St Mary’s Place passed through the heirs of Sarah Broughton until it was bought by Richard Newcomb for £400, in 1850 (LA, MISC DON 1064/12). The complete list of owners and tenants of the building from 1663 until its auction sale in October 1919 can be seen in Appendix A. 2. The Origin of the Saracen’s Head Inn, Stamford Example of image for Saracen's Head inn sign The Oxford Dictionary provides the meaning of Saracen as i. An Arab or Muslim at the time of the Crusades and ii. A nomad of the Syrian or Arabic descent. The ‘Saracen’s Head‘ is described as a heraldic charge or an inn sign, and although many inns named the Saracen’s Head remain in England the word Saracen can now cause offence. Its use as a name for an inn is almost certainly linked to the Crusades which were a series of wars in the Holy Land from 1096 to 1297. The English did not participate until the 2nd Crusade in 1147 when a few knights ‘took the cross’ [taking vows and joining a crusade] and travelled to Palestine. In 1187, Richard, as the Duke of Pitou, took the cross and later, as Richard I, he led the 3rd Crusade in 1190, with the support of an army of 6,000 Englishmen. It is known that there was support in Stamford for pilgrims and knights travelling to Jerusalem before 1189, in the form of the house of the Holy Sepulchre, a hospital of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, sometimes called Knights Hospitallers. This was situated on the south side of the River Welland on the site of the George Hotel. Elsewhere in England there is evidence of a Saracen’s Head inn existing prior to 1194 as Richard I on his return from the Crusades visited one and renamed it the Royal Saracen’s Head. It is suggested in the location information above that the Saracen’s Head in Stamford may have been operating until 1663 and from Prof Alan Rogers it is known that the Saracen’s Head was being repaired in 1435 and therefore must have been built prior to that date. The knights and soldiers from the north of England would have retraced their steps when returning from the Crusade in 1194 and passed through Stamford on their way home. The success of Richard the Lionheart’s campaign in the Holy Land and its subsequent mythologising spread throughout the country, and this may have led to the naming of the Saracen’s Head in St Marys Place, an important area of Stamford adjacent to St Mary’s church. Finally, the southwest corner of the cellar of 1 St Mary’s Place ‘incorporates part of a 13th-century undercroft’ (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, The Town of Stamford ). Could this be part of the cellar of the Saracen’s Head or even part of the three lower ground rooms sold to Henry Fairchild in 1663? The Saracen’s Head was built between 1190 and 1435, but with the existence of the undercroft one might err towards the beginning of the 13th century shortly after the return of the Crusaders. Appendix A Note… Text in italics indicates an assumption A print copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back Silk Mills, Stamford Advert to Parish Officers WANTED, about TWENTY GIRLS, of the age of nine to twelve, to work at the above business, which is light and healthy. Any parish officers having such children, and desirous of their being so employed, are requested to apply (if by letter, post paid) to Mr Gouger, of Stamford, who will explain the terms upon which they will be taken, and will also see that they are properly clothed, maintained, and instructed. SOURCE DRAKARD’S STAMFORD NEWS (FRIDAY) NOVEMBER 29 TH 1822 p1/c1 Notes Below. Mr Gouger was advertising for young female staff in both Drakard’s Stamford News and the Stamford Mercury through September 1822 to the end of the year. It was not until the passing of the Elementary Education Act in 1870 that education became compulsory for children under thirteen. In 1822 an advert for young girls aged between nine and twelve to work in an industrial environment would not have seen to be out of the ordinary. The Mill was behind No 32 Broad Street and when it closed in 1829 it was reportedly employing 400 women and children, some of which were probably out-workers. A print version can be downloaded HERE 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 Recreation Ground Bandstand Chris Hunt 2021 OPENING CEREMONY PERFORMED BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR For months past the work of improving the north portion of the Recreation Ground almost out of recognition has gone steadily forward. Although at the outset the scheme, which owes its inception to Councillor T.S.Duncomb, the then Mayor, was received with some divergence of opinion, it is indisputable that the appearance of the grounds has been considerably smartened. Above the rail fence which now divides the wide expanse of grass are a bowling green, and spaces to be devoted to tennis courts, croquet lawns, and quoit beds. Along winding grass-bordered paths one passes beds of shrubs and flowers, whilst scores of trees have been added. In time to come these will provide grateful summer shade for the occupants of the many conveniently placed seats. The crowning glory of the scheme is the new bandstand, in all its bravery of white and green, surrounded by a wide circle of gravel walk. A neat plate records the fact that it was erected by public subscription. This prettily designed structure was the scene of Thursday evening’s (July 14th 1910) interesting ceremony, Councillor Duncomb, in the presence of a large gathering, formally opening the bandstand and grounds. The bandstand was designed by Messrs. J.B.Corby and Son, architects, All Saints’ Place, and erected by Mr Woolston. It was originally intended, if funds had allowed, to erect a more pretentious ornamental structure, including a basement below the ground for storage of chairs, also screens for the bandsmen, and other improvements. The tenders, however, came to considerably more than the promoters had in hand, so the architects modified the scheme and cut down the ornamentation to meet it. Several gentlemen made gifts of various parts of the structure and thus enabled the stand to be erected for very much less than would otherwise have been the case, those contributing being Messrs. Miles, Williamson, Cliff, and Co., Mr T.S.Duncomb, Mr J.Woolston, and others. The dimensions of the stand, which is octagonal, are 19 feet across and two feet from the ground to floor line and twelve feet from floor to ceiling; the total height from ground (including vane) is 33 feet. The base is built of brickwork, faced with local freestone, on cement concrete foundations; the floor is cement concrete finished smooth. The eight posts of chestnut, having moulded bases, caps, and necking, are dowelled to the concrete angles and held in position with bolts to the roof framing. The ceiling is in match boarded panels with mould around. The main bearers are moulded and supported around each post by ornamental cut brackets in which can be seen the initial “S” (Stamford). The roof is covered with buff roofing tiles, the whole being surmounted by an ornamental weather vane, presented by the Ex-Mayor, finished on roof with bossed and dressed leadwork. The enclosure to the stand is formed by moulded rails and sills filled in with square balusters, with gate on south side to match, having an approach of three York steps. At the south east angle is the foundation stone, to which is affixed an engraved brass plate having the Borough Arms and “A.D. 1909. Erected by public subscription, T.S.Duncomb, Mayor.” A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Life and Loves of my Great Great Grandfather A talk for the Stamford Local History Society on 4th Dec 2025 by Trish Auciello George's death certificate This is my great great grandfather’s death certificate, he died in Spalding in January 1912 of bronchitis. There are three problems with this certificate: That’s not his name, that’s not his age, and that’s not his wife George was born in Barholm in 1844 as George Bunning Peake, the son of John and Susannah. John was an agricultural labourer and George followed in his footsteps. George's marriage certificate George married Margaret Hyde in January 1868 in Uffington Church, when he was 24 and she was 28. Margaret was born in Stamford in 1840 and had a tough childhood. Her father, John, was a stonemason, a skilled occupation, but they lived in Protection Place, just off Scotgate, known as a notorious slum. There were five children and Margaret’s mother, also Margaret, died aged 32 of tuberculosis when Margaret was four. John’s mother, another Margaret, moved in with them but she died in 1851, and John died in 1861. In 1861, Margaret was in service with an ironmonger in St. John’s Street, and in 1865, she had a son, called William. Margaret's Affiliation Order In March1866, Margaret obtained an affiliation order against William Harrison for child support of 1s 6d per week, worth about £15 today. He is described as a former employee of Mr Daffurn, did he lose his job because he had fathered a child outside of marriage? If life was tough for Margaret growing up, it did not improve after her marriage. Her daughter, Betsey, was born in July 1868, so Margaret was pregnant when she married George. They moved into Stamford and were living in Brittain’s Court, another slum area off Scotgate in February 1870. George's court appearance early February 1870 George appeared in court on 7th February 1870, accused of breaking into his mother’s house in Barholm and stealing various articles, some of which he pawned in Stamford. I’ve not found any follow up to this story, perhaps his mother decided not to press charges. However, just 3 weeks later…. George's trial late February 1970 George pleaded guilty to stealing a manure fork, value 1s 6d, and pawning it in Stamford. I don’t think the pawn broker was too fussy. His solicitor stated that George hadn’t been able to find work all winter and the family was in a fearful state of poverty. Margaret was described as being near her confinement, but didn’t want to enter the workhouse in case they lost their current home. George was sentenced to seven days in prison and Margaret was advised she could seek out-relief for a week. The sad postscript to this story is that there’s no record of a live birth to Margaret, perhaps those months of deprivation took their toll and the baby was stillborn. Margaret was pregnant again in the summer of 1870. George's court appearance November 1870 George was charged with fraud in Market Deeping and committed to trial at the sessions. His crime was obtaining an pair of trousers and boots by deception, it would probably only merit a fine today, but in 1870 it meant he spent the next two months in prison awaiting trial. George's trial January 1871 George pleaded guilty at his trial, and was sentenced to a further month in prison with hard labour. Folkingham House of Correction George served his time in prison here. The gatehouse is still standing and can be rented as a holiday home for around £2,000 a week in peak season. If Margaret hadn’t wanted to enter the workhouse earlier in 1870, it was inevitable when George went to prison. Stamford Workhouse on Barnack Road In the 1871 census, Margaret is in Stamford workhouse, with William, Betsey, and her son George junior, aged just 3 weeks. In the same census, George is working on a farm at Deeping St. Nicholas and claiming to be single. Inquest 1872 In August 1872, Margaret was a witness at an inquest into the sudden death of her neighbour from apoplexy. They were living on Rock Road, so it’s safe to assume George has returned to the family and indeed he started working for Hayes Coachbuilders around this time. William's Death Record Margaret’s son William died in 1874 aged 9, after being ill for a year with tubercular peritonitis. Rock Road, Stamford In 1881, the family was still in Rock Road, somewhere on the left of this photo but long since demolished. The family now consisted of George and Margaret, Betsey, George junior, my future great grandmother, Mary Ann, bon in 1875, and twin girls, Margaret and Martha Jane, born in 1879. They also had a lodger, Thomas Dexter, who worked at Hayes. So had life settled down? After all, George had been in stable employment for nearly 10 years, they had been living in the same house for around the same time, a lodger provided extra income – unfortunately not. George's trial August 1883 In August 1883, George and another man were found guilty of stealing five trusses of clover, the property of Hayes and Son, his employers for the past ten years. If a truss of clover is the same size as hay, they weighed at least 60 pounds each, not something you could easily hide. Folkingham had closed by now, George may have served his three month sentence in Sleaford. Why did he do it? Was he still struggling to support a growing family, or was it just stupidity? Corporation Buildings built 1891 George left his family, and Stamford, sometime between his 1883 prison term and the 1891 census. In 1891, Margaret was living in Corporation Buildings, on Scotgate. She is sharing three rooms with Betsey, George junior, the twins, her widowed brother John, their lodger from Rock Road, Thomas, and another lodger Elizabeth Andrews aged one. Elizabeth’s mother was unmarried and left Stamford soon after her daughter’s birth, leaving her with Margaret to look after. Margaret’s brother John remarried in 1892, but the sleeping arrangements would still have been interesting as Betsey and Thomas married in 1893. In 1891, my great grandmother was in service at 4 Barn Hill, where I like to think she had her own bedroom. 22 Scotgate built 1901 Margaret’s situation has improved by 1901, she’s now living at 22 Scotgate, the left hand half of the building in the picture. Although I imagine Thomas was paying most of the bills, Margaret was described as head of the house, also living there are Betsey and Thomas, the twins, and Elizabeth, now described as a foster daughter. My great grandmother, Mary Ann, had married in 1895, after she had their son in 1894. George junior married in 1899. With life improving for Margaret, let’s look at what George has been doing. 48 Westgate, Peterborough George was living in Peterborough in 1891, in the left hand corner section of this building. He is described as a bricklayer’s labourer. With him and described as his wife, is Susannah W. Peake, a laundress aged 39, and her son Alfred W. W. Peake, also a bricklayer’s labourer aged 17. This property looks more spacious than the three rooms Margaret is sharing with seven people in Stamford. Susannah was born in Stamford in 1851 as Susannah Harrison. In 1871, she was living and working in a pub, and later that year, she married Harry Wallis, a carpenter originally from Empingham, and had their son, Alfred William, a year later. Harry’s enlistment? Harry's enlistment? In 1876, Harry Wallis, born in Empingham, living in Stamford enlisted in the Royal Artillery. His age is four years younger, but surely this must be Susannah’s husband. So is this chicken or egg? Did Harry enlist and Susannah say “sod this for a game of soldiers”? or did she leave and Harry went for a less extreme version of the French Foreign Legion? After Harry’s army career, he spent the rest of his life in Leicester with at least two female housekeepers, and died in 1912 aged 63. What is certain is that Susannah was living in Kensington, London, in 1881, with her son Alfred. She is described as the wife of Thomas Wallis, a bricklayer, born in Kilsby, Northamptonshire. I haven’t been able to find Thomas Wallis anywhere else, so I think Susannah was using her name on the census. I don’t know whether Susannah thought Kensington would be smart and exciting, but there were four families totalling twenty five people in the same house. A plot worthy of EastEnders? So many questions…. Who was Thomas and how did he get together with Susannah? Stamford or London? Why did Susannah leave London, was it with or without Thomas? With Thomas being a bricklayer, is there any significance in George and Alfred being bricklayer’s labourers? Did they work with Thomas, perhaps locally? It’s likely that George and Susannah knew each other from her time at the pub, did they meet again through Thomas? If Thomas and George did work together locally, did they continue to do so after Susannah got together with George? Although these events could have been used in EastEnders, unfortunately this is real life and I have no answers to the questions raised. There’s no information on the 1891 census for 48 Westgate so perhaps they didn’t complete it that year. 22 Scotgate again in 1911 Margaret’s daughter Margaret married in 1905, and Martha Jane in 1908. In 1911, the remaining family are still at 22 Scotgate, but Thomas is now shown as head of the family, with Betsey and the foster daughter Elizabeth. Margaret has been relegated to the bottom of the page as mother-in-law. George in 1911 How I know that the George Wallis on the death certificate is George Bunning Peake? It’s because of the 1911 census. George and Susannah are living at 88 Winsover Road in Spalding, he is described as George Peak Wallace (Wallace and Wallis seem to have been interchangeable), aged 72, a bricklayer’s labourer from Stamford. His age is incorrect but it’s also wrong on the death certificate. The 1911 census asks for number of years married and children born alive. Susannah says she had one child, now dead, I haven’t been able to find Alfred to confirm this. She has given her years married as 39, which is factually correct, just not to George. 88 Winsover Road, Spalding This is where George and Susannah were living in 1911 and where George died in 1912. Spalding Cemetery George is buried in Spalding Cemetery, there’s no headstone but he’s somewhere in this area. Susannah died in 1918 of heart failure and she’s buried four graves away from George. Margaret's death Margaret died in 1917 aged 76 of arthritis deformans and exhaustion. By the time of her death, she had raised six children, seen two of them die, and had nine grandchildren. Margaret’s son George junior had died in 1915 from tuberculosis of the spine. One son-in-law and her eldest grandson served in WW1 and they both survived. Stamford Cemetery Margaret is buried in Stamford cemetery, she doesn’t have a headstone either, but her grave is shown here with the arrow. The grave with the book headstone is her daughter Martha Jane and her husband Charles, the cross is her grandson Thomas who died in 1926, and the small low marker to the right is Betsey and Thomas. Her other children are all buried in the cemetery. Conclusion George seems to have done his best for his family in the early years of his marriage, even if crime didn’t pay – not the ones we know about anyway. I’ve tried not to be too judgemental but it’s difficult to forgive George for deserting his family. I hope Margaret’s children were grateful that she was made of sterner stuff. Trish Auciello December 2025 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next