< 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 Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company 1832-1911 Chris Hunt 2023 The Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company Limited was one of the earliest English joint stock banks. Founded in 1832, partly as a response to losses and a withdrawal of banking services by other banks in the rural towns around Stamford. Oundle Commercial Bank, founded in 1815 by Messrs Smith and Ridsdale had a market day agency in Stamford, which in 1831 started to hint to their customers that they intended to discontinue their business. Mr Ridsdale, one of the managing partners suggested the establishment of a joint stock bank in conjunction with another retiring banker, Bugg and Co. Thus in 1832, the Stamford and Spalding Bank was established from the businesses of these two private banks, with branches at Stamford, Spalding and Oundle. The main business of the bank in these early years was the agricultural sector and the growing industrial businesses that supported this part of the economy. In 1834, a branch was opened in Boston and the increased workload meant it was decided to divide the general board into three local boards; Stamford, Spalding and Boston. As a result of these changes the bank was re-named the Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company. The bank made a number of acquisitions through the rest of the 19th century. In 1843 they acquired Clarke and Phillips Bank of Leicester who had branches in Oakham and Uppingham; and Goddard and Inkersole of Market Harborough. This was followed by Simpson and White bank in 1849, the Yorke and Company of Oundle and Peterborough in 1861, and the Nottingham Joint Stock Bank at Grantham in 1880. In 1888 they took over the failed bank of Messrs Eland and Eland who had branches in Thrapston and Kettering after offering fifteen shillings in the pound to the Eland’s creditors. Finally in 1891 they acquired the Eaton, Cayley and Banking Company of Stamford. By the end of the 19th century the Bank had twenty-two branches and sixteen agencies across Lincolnshire and adjoining counties and its size attracted the interest of national banking conglomerates and was acquired by Barclay and Co Limited in 1911. Barclay’s branch in Stamford at 46-49 Broad Street being formerly the town’s Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company office. is still with us, but only until April 28th 2023. Chris Hunt January 2023 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Muster Roll 1584 David Nalson 2012 RESPECT OUR PRIVILEGES: A Muster Certificate for Stamford and St Martin’s, 1584. Among the many manuscript volumes which are to be found in the Town Hall is an early one of considerable interest. It contains a wide range of notes and transcripts of items relating to the property of the town including a register of leases from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, hirings of servants, sealing of hides and other items, not least a taxation list of 1581. The volume covers much of Elizabeth I’s reign, though it was used mainly as a record of leases of town (and probably Free School) property until 1720. Among all the early notes and transcripts – a few written in the finest and neatest hands of the period, many more bordering on the near illegible – one item stands out, not least because the scribe was forced to turn the volume on its side in order to fit all the detail on the page clearly. Written carefully, its heading explains its original purpose: A Copy of the certificate of the Musters and charge of Stamford …… 23 January 1583 [1584] & xxvj year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. All was not as straightforward as it might at first appear, however, as the writer takes care to point out. This is indeed a “copy” of the document made presumably by the Alderman [as the Mayor of the time was called] and his fellows at the request of central government. But the title also contains an indication that the original had been “delivered to Thomas Cony Esquier, John Harington Esqr. and Francis Harington Esqr. Commissioners Royal for Musters in the hundred of Nesse, who wolde have sitt also for Staunforde, and was denyed by Richard Shute then Alderman who with his brethren tooke the Muster by virtue of the Charter but yet delivered their doinges to be certified with the Shire.” The then Alderman, Richard Shute, had quite clearly refused to co-operate with the Royal Commissioners. They had been given the task of drawing up the Muster for the local area the hundred of Ness including the borough of Stamford. Moreover, he wanted to ensure that his own lack of co-operation was recorded for all to see. By implication his fellow justices, all senior members of the borough council, as well as the rest of the council, were included also. Shute had, with his fellow justices of the peace, carried out the task of recording the muster for Stamford, presumably having refusing to allow the Royal Commissioners, in their official capacity, to come into the town. His authority for so doing, he claimed, was the Royal Charter to the Borough which gave the Town the right to carry out all aspects of administration of the town without interference from outside authorities. To show the town’s allegiance to the Queen nevertheless, having ensured that its own rights and privileges had been protected, the Alderman then gave his findings to these same Royal Commissioners for Ness so they could include them in their own summary. But this is not all. When the list was submitted to the Commissioners certain details, also given in our copy below, were not passed on to the authorities. “I did sett donne but the first name only of ev[er]y Caliver men ……. to this ende yt it shoolde not appeare to the Queenes Councell upon the certificate, yt we sought so much helpe for so small a charge. The reason for the omission of the subsidiary names of the caliver men is thus made clear. It would certainly be stretching interpretation a little to suggest that the Alderman was directly seeking to avoid taxation by this little ruse. Rather he looked to reinforce the reports of the town’s poverty which had already reached the ears of the powers at court. The reality of late sixteenth century Stamford was that the town was struggling, and the issue of poverty in and of the town in the late sixteenth century was a very real one. It would have been most desirable to reinforce this appearance of poverty in central government’s record. Another interesting feature of the record is that the muster was taken for both the Town and the parish of St Martin’s, across the river in a separate county and, coincidentally, diocese. From the later middle ages until the early nineteenth century the borough was jealous of its status in all areas of administration and St Martin’s was regarded as a completely separate entity administratively. It had always been the custom that only those who lived in the borough, that is the area to north of the Welland, should be permitted to trade in the borough, having first been granted their freedom. Likewise the magistrates of the borough had no jurisdiction whatsoever to south of the river. Crimes committed in St Martin’s parish were dealt with by the justices of Northamptonshire or the Soke of Peterborough. In the same way the borough coroner had no jurisdiction south of the Town Bridge. Most importantly of all, especially at a later date, only those admitted to freedom of the borough and paying “scot and lot”, the town taxes, could vote in any elections for Stamford’s two members of parliament. The First Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832 changed those electoral qualifications, ironically not to the local benefit of the reformers. The Municipal Corporations Reform Act of 1835 formally united the settlements on both sides of the Welland, essentially creating the borough which lasted until 1972. Between these two reforms, in 1834, the Poor Law Amendment Act also directly affected an area of jurisdiction of the town, bringing parishes in Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire under the authority of the Poor Law Guardians, based in Stamford. One further significant consideration about this copy of the Muster for Stamford in 1584 remains – if this document is, by its own admission, the true statement rather than the return for public consumption, was William Cecil, Lord Burghley, being hoodwinked or was he aware of what was going on? It is hard to believe, with his background and his contacts, that he would have been totally unaware of what was happening, more especially as his own parish of St Martin’s was included in the returns. In these circumstances, it would be good to know whether he encouraged and supported this or whether he knew about this. Such conclusions can only be drawn from the use of sources outside Stamford. Items referred to in the Muster Roll itself A Corslett was either the breastplate, or the whole armour of a pikeman. A Caliver was a gun newly introduced in Elizabeth's reign, that was 4 ft 10 ins long, but still lighter and shorter than the musket, and it fired more rapidly. In the glossary of the 2001 edition of the reprint of the 1603 edition of Stow’s Survey of London “almaine rivets” are described as “a kind of light armour, first used in Germany in which great flexibility was obtained by overlapping plates sliding on rivets.” The source of the information is given as “Almaine or alman rivets - a certaine kinde of armour, or corslet for the body of a man, with the sleeves or braces of maile, or plates of iron, for the defense of the armes, so called because they be rivetted or buckled after the old Alman fashion.” (Minsheu, Guide unto Tongues, 1617) NB All Christian Names have been extended without indication in this transcript Staunforde with St Martyns A Copy of the certificate of the Musters and charge of Stamford delivered to Thomas Cony Esquier, John Harington Esqr. and Francis Harington Esqr. Commissioners Royal for Musters in the hundred of Nesse, who wolde have sitt also for Staunforde, and was denyed by Richard Shute then Alderman who with his brethren tooke the Muster by virtue of the Charter but yet delivered their doinges to be certified with the Shire. 23 January 1583 [1584] & xxvj year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Private Armes 2 Corselets Edward Heron Esqr A Corslett furnished Thomas Lane miller to beare it John Wingfelde Esqr A Corslett furnished Robert Warner his s[er]vaunte 5 Calivers Richard Shute & A Caliver furnished Richard Dawson housholder John Browne trayned Nicholas Fulwood & A Caliver furnished Henry Lewys h[ousholder] & Henry Clarke trayned Robert Medowes & A Calyver [sic] furnished Mathew Rooth baker Cutbert Grenebery h[ousholder] Robert Tomson, A Calyver furnished William Topper tailer trayned Peter Wokely & William Loveday Laurence Willesby & A Calyver furnished Griffyn Owen shoemaker Thoby Loveday 2 Alm[ayne] ryvetes Richard Dickenson, An Almayne ryvett furnished Richard Goodlad Sawyer Nicholas Lambe and Anthony Hitchcocke John Allyn, An Almayne ryvett furnished Rychard Johnson John Tonnesend h[ousholder] and John Dickenson jun[ior] 6 Bowes Ralf Haseldyne & A long bowe shef of arrows, Oliver Scorer h[ousholder] John Yerwood a steele cappe or scull Thomas Orton A sworde & dagger William Campinet & A longe bowe furnished as above John Clarke h[ousholder] Reginald Harrison [ut sup(r)a] John Barnes the elder & A longe bowe fur[nished] as above James Grene h[ouseholder] Robert Langton [ut sup(r)a] John P[ar]sons & A longe bowe furnished as above Richard Backhus S[er]vant William Lovedey [del] [ut sup(r)a] Robert Billing William Watson & A longe bowe furnished as above Robert Turnam [?Tumam] Gilbert Ward thelder [ut sup(r)a] h[ouseholder] John Elmes gent A longe bowe fur[nished] as above John Bosden householder [ut sup(r)a] Common Armes [ie belonging to the community] 3 Corsletes Staunforde iij Corslettes furnished James Backhus} William Todde} Householders to beare William Coye } the corslettes 3 Calivers St Martins iij Calivers furnished Jeffery Haverde } Henry Grene } Householders to Thomas Cooke smith } cary them Sum Total} Corsletts v { Be it remembred yt [that] where it appeareth to be two or three persons to a } } Calivers viij { Calyver & so to the rest of the armo[ur], yet in the copy I deliv[er]ed to the } Bowes vj { Justices abovenamed I did sett donne but the first name only of ev[er]y } Alm[ayne] { Caliver men & the rest [del] The w[hi]ch I did sett to this ende yt it shoolde } Rivetes ij { not appeare to the Queenes Councell [ins or Royal Commissioners] upon the { certificate, yt we sought so much helpe for so small a charge. Memorandum also yt of all this charge Staunforde and St Martins together founde but viij men, whereof Staunforde iiij St Martins ij Mr John Wingfeld of the Nones j, & Mr Heron of the Black Fryers one man, A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Woman’s Suffrage in Stamford Fight for the Vote 1913 Chris Hunt 2023 On Saturday July 12th 1913 the talk in Stamford was of that evening’s meeting on the Meadows where the issue of female suffrage and the right to vote was to be discussed. Reporters from the three local newspapers were in attendance, the Stamford and Rutland Guardian , the Stamford & District News and the Lincolnshire, Rutland & Stamford Mercury . Today we remember the Suffragettes, the militant wing of the movement for Votes for Women. There was however a non-militant organisation, the Suffragist’s, who allowed men to join their organisation, and it was them who organised the meeting on the Meadows as part of the 1913 Great Pilgrimage for women’s suffrage. Groups of women, with some men, marched from all parts of the country to London. Where on Saturday July 26th 1913 in Hyde Park a crowd of over 50,000 heard speeches calling for Votes For Women and those present unanimously passed the motion: - “That this meeting demands a Government measure for the enfranchisement of women.” As to the meeting in Stamford. The Guardian reporter summed up the day as follows:- The announcement on local hoarding, in eye-aching red and green, that a number of ladies belonging to the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies would address the people of Stamford on Saturday evening, in the Meadows, created keen interest, and their arrival was awaited by a huge assembly. The party, known as the Great North Road section, is one of a number marching through the country to London, and they are identified with a strictly law abiding and non-party organisation. Leaving Newcastle on June 18th, the contingent under notice has been subjected to what can only be described as hostility and rough treatment in some places, notably, in Mansfield and such occurrences can only be described as despicable seeing that the ladies are pursuing their agitations for the vote – the merit or de-merit of the demand we are not concerned with – by perfectly peaceful and legitimate means. On the other hand they have been the recipients of extraordinary kindness and hospitality. The National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage did not allow the march of the pilgrims to proceed without protest, and consequently men paraded the streets bearing sandwich-boards, upon which placards declared that women do not want votes. The Pilgrims made it quite clear that some women want them badly. The Suffragists, neatly attired in walking costumes, and wearing sashes of red, white and green, numbered about a dozen and carried banners setting forth the nature of the cause they are advocating. A motor car preceded them, containing Miss Norma Smith, who made the necessary arrangements at each place. The party left Grantham on Saturday morning (July 12th 1913), and on the way to Stamford held successful meetings at Colsterworth and Great Casterton. Their arrival here took place about 7.30 and an eager and expectant concourse of people gathered in Red Lion Square and lined Scotgate. As the Suffragists accompanied by several Stamford ladies who supported their cause, marched to the Meadows their reception was by no means unfriendly. Several of the ladies carried bouquets of flowers and altogether they presented a very attractive appearance. No time was lost in starting the speech making and very soon the trollies forming temporary platforms were surrounded by a dense throng of people. The crowd in the Meadows and lining the river bank must have numbered between three and four thousand, and very wisely, the police force was strongly augmented by constables from the adjacent district (Kesteven Constabulary). The arrangements for coping with any rowdyism were excellent, and Supt Theaker, the head of the Stamford force, who was consulted regarding the arrangements by the Union representatives, is to be congratulated on the way in which such a huge assembly was handled. It will be well recollected that upon the occasion of a Suffragette meeting in the Square a few months ago there were disgraceful scenes, and on Saturday evening it was soon evident that a number of those present were bent on creating a noise. Rushes were made for the platform occupied by Miss Garlick and her friends, but the police were able to prevent any mischief. Verbal interruptions were frequent, but these were of a good-natured character, and the ladies powers of repartee were fully demonstrated. It was a case of give-and-take, and the sallies evoked hearty laughter. Strangely enough all the opposition was centred on one trio of speakers. The speeches from the other platform proceeded without interruption to the end. Miss Garlick presided over the unruly assembly, and the other speakers were Miss Beaver and Miss Meikle (Leeds). On the other platform were Mrs Gerald Dowson as “chairman,” accompanied by Miss Norma Smith (organising the pilgrimage from Sheffield to Huntingdon), and Mrs W.E.Dowson of Nottingham. Miss Garlick, like the other speakers, placed the Suffragist arguments very eloquently. Some facts revealed concerning their Union included the information that it has a membership of 47,000, fresh adherents having been obtained at the rate of a thousand a month for some time past; that their methods are perfectly peaceful and law-abiding; that they are no way associated with the militant section, and that their express purpose is not only to assure the people of the country, but once again to assure the Prime Minister and all Members of Parliament that women do want the vote, notwithstanding the fact that on the way there that evening they notice a few tired-looking gentlemen carrying placards bearing the strange device, “Women Don’t Want the Vote.” She made it clear that the Union to which she belonged did not favour the militant methods. Miss Beaver spoke well, but was soon interrupted, and her mention of Mrs Pankhurst’s name was an error. It raised a storm of disapproval, and the hubbub after this was on the increase. The speaker urged that if women were not deemed intelligent enough to have votes, then some men who now possessed them scarcely knew how to use them. This remark did not mend matters and the interruptions continued at intervals. However, Miss Beaver managed to make some excellent points. Miss Meikle had not the best of attention and at the outset of her remarks, when interrupted, wrote notes on a tablet until the noise ceased. Towards the close of the meeting turf was thrown, and the addresses, which lasted for about an hour and a quarter ended amid much animation. The descent of the speakers from the trollies was the signal for a determined attempt to rush them, but the police succeeded in forming a strong bodyguard. As the ladies approached the bridge a desire was somewhat apparent to push them, along with the police, into the Welland. A number of townsmen however, went to the assistance of the officers and the ladies were got safely across the bridge, the entrance to which was then barricaded by the majority of the police while the suffragists made their way to the different residences which were affording them hospitality for the night. The following Wednesday afternoon (July 16th 1913) there was another suffrage meeting in the town. This one was organised by the Stamford branch of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association. This was held in the Bede House garden, Broad Street, which was addressed by the Countess of Selborne, President of the Association. This meeting being held in the week was a much more refined occasion, with tea and cake, and no need of police protection. The meeting was as political and the Guardian was there to report on the speeches. The Rev. J.R.H.Duke, rector of Thornhaugh presided over a good attendance, and was supported on the terrace by Lady Selborne, Misses M.Evans (Hon. Secretary of the local branch, D.Evans, Young, Hart, M.Kellett, Sunderland-Taylor, Williams, and Duncombe (Honorary Secretary of the Oakham Branch), along with Mr T.Sandall and a number of local clergy. The chairman, in a brief series of remarks, said that by all rules of ordinary logic women should have votes upon the same terms as men. At present they had municipal votes and could fill the office of Town Councillor, Guardian, and even Mayor. There was no reason why they should not take an equal interest in the greater affairs of the empire. Municipal questions largely concerned building, drainage, and roads, which was not really women’s business, so that the Parliamentary vote would enable them to deal with questions with which they would be more at home. As to property and taxation, it had been well said that representation and taxation should go hand-in-hand; there should be no objection against the contention that if women had to pay their share towards the upkeep of the country they should be given the chance of helping to decide how it should be expended (hear, hear). Besides, women were more economical than men, whilst they were quite as intelligent, if not more so in many cases. Women were conservative in the ordinary sense and would do more than men in the assistance of art, and the preservation of the memorials of the past. They would, as voters, strengthen the Conservative and Unionist side of the House of Commons, and might be reckoned on to protect the Church from attack, particularly the Welsh portion. To say, as some did, that if women had votes they would be under the influence of the parish priest was ridiculous. As to the militant methods of some women, there was no reason why so many others who favoured peaceful advocacy should be deprived of the privilege they claimed. He regarded the “cat and mouse” Act as a bad piece of legislation. The government had practically invited outrage, and one prominent supporter told those who asked for women’s suffrage that they would not get it until they made themselves a nuisance. Could it be wondered at that some took his words seriously? In conclusion, Mr Duke asked the Countess to address them. Her ladyship, he said, bore an honoured name, one which was respected all over the county. She was the daughter of a great statesman, and sister to Lord Roberts and Lord Hugh Cecil, who were staunch supporters of the Church. Lady Selborne, who was warmly received, said she was very pleased to visit Stamford, which was the only place represented by her father, the late Marquis of Salisbury, in the House of Commons, up to the time he went to the House of Lords. When she was asked to come and speak here, she felt that she would like to do so, for his sake (applause). He was always a supporter of the principle of giving votes to women and furthered the cause when County Councils were instituted and women were granted the power to vote in those elections. Thus, she felt that the work of their Association would have had his approval. Women had just as great an interest in all public questions as men possessed, and it was the theory of democracy that those that contributed to the State should have a voice in the choice of legislation and in the selection of the government responsible for the public business of the country. If women were granted the vote it was not likely that the powers of government would ever be put into their hands, and they would always be content to leave it to men to deal with, even if they ever possessed the right to become Members of Parliament. It was the business of women to choose and not to govern. Women had great influence in politics, and any Bill which had their support always made its way to the front. The speaker dealt with the great influence exercised by women, and its power of good or evil. Women with votes would know that with political power they would also have responsibility and they would therefore deal with any question with more care and thought than was the case at present. If women had the vote they would not be so likely to rush into politics in an emotional way just when some question cropped up that specially interested them. It would be far better to have voting women than influencing women. The passing of a reasonable measure entitling women to vote would prevent much of the present evil of militancy, which was depriving the cause of a great deal of sympathy. In several of our colonies, America and Norway, women had been granted the vote, and the system was a success. In Sweden and Denmark the granting of the vote was being favourably considered. It was somewhat remarkable that in no other country but ours had the agitation for votes for women resulted in militant methods. But any violence was due to Ministers saying one thing and meaning another. They should have said “No” at the outset, instead of making promises and not fulfilling them. In the House of Commons Women’s Franchise Bills had passed their second reading, and it was generally understood that when this was the case the principle of a measure was approved. But despite this women had not yet been granted a vote. The speaker considered that the Prime Minister, had he taken more care, could have drawn up the Franchise Bill so as to admit an amendment. This would have saved a great deal of bitterness and controversy. But the militant outrages formed no reason why the female sex generally should not be granted votes, for the women who had resorted to extreme measures did not number more than about 50, and it was unfair to keep a million and a half women disfranchised because of the faults of a few. Women had as great an interest in the affairs of the country as men, and what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander (applause). The best argument of all in support of votes for women was that it was a success, whether in County Councils or other departments of public life. Her ladyship, in conclusion, urged the members of the branch to continue the good work they had undertaken, and go forward with all possible activity. They should read up the subject, for it was only by being themselves convinced that they could convince others. Let them persuade their friends to join the Association, and thus strengthened, go on until their aim was accomplished. In proposing a vote of thanks to the Countess for her address and to the chairman, Miss Evans said that Stamford had a special claim upon her ladyship’s kindness, for she did not come among them as a stranger but as the daughter of the late Lord Salisbury, who in bygone years ably represented Stamford in Parliament. Her visit would rouse this branch to do even more for the cause of women’s liberty. Some said it was unwomanly to work for that cause, but how could it be when there were so many women who could not protect themselves, and who were working under labour conditions that urgently called for reform (applause). Other people said that a vote was no protection, but if this were the case why was there so much battling concerning the proposal to abolish plural votes? Miss Evans was congratulated on an able speech. Once the meeting finished those present were entertained at tea. How different to the earlier meeting held on the Meadows? In the same week that the Stamford and Rutland Guardian reported on the Suffragists meeting on Stamford Meadows and the meeting of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association there appeared in the same paper the following poem entitled:- THE SUFFRAGETTES We collected in our thousands, By the Welland’s flowing stream, To beguile the evening hours, Listening to the suffrage scheme. I am not disposed to offer, Views upon the female vote, But I wish to tell the scoffer, Things I would have him note. When he cast his senile “booing”, In a helpless woman’s face, He was eloquently showing, Much degeneracy of race. Pity him his lack of reason, Scorn for those who urge him on, This is Stamford’s senseless season, Chivalry is past and gone. Is there one who this attended? Could have faced, on yonder dray, With a courage, cool, and splendid, Asses with so loud a bray? (by) CYNICUS As to the Stamford & Rutland Guardian’s editorial comment. It stated:- All things considered, the Suffragist’s meeting at Stamford, on Saturday passed off remarkably well. For the credit of the great majority it must be made clear that those who disturbed the meeting and initiated the horseplay were simply out for a lark and cared nothing for common sense or argument. There was a chance of a Saturday night spree and that was all they wanted. Some, it was obvious, had had recourse to something stronger than water and so their share of the clamour need not be taken much notice of. Several of the interjections during the speeches were by no means devoid of wit and had the interruptions been simply verbal the meeting would have been quite enjoyable. But the foolish josting and turf-throwing was quite another story, and proved the caddish propensities of a certain section of the crowd. The speakers were ladies of education and should have been treated as such. However, as we have said, no great harm was done, and perhaps the occasional disorder was but the vent for those of vinous tastes. The Stamford and District News also reported on the event and although their report is similar there are a number of incidents reported that did not appear in the Stamford & Rutland Guardian . As they passed the Post office there was a slight attempt to “boo” them, but this soon subsided, and escorted by members of the Police Force the ladies were escorted down St John’s Street and Castle Hill to the meadows. Two trolleys belonging to Mr B.W.Aldwinckle were standing one on each side of the footpath between the two bridges, and speeches were delivered simultaneous from the two vehicles, to an assembly of between 2,000 and 3,000 persons. During part of the rally, at one time the crushing was so bad that numbers of little children near (one of) the wagons were escorted by the police out of the crowd into places of safety. Several of the men possessing a greater sense of justice and fair play than some of the others appealed to the disorderly ones to be quiet, but this had no effect, and the disorder continued, during which there was singing (including a verse of a hymn) and shouting, while a few piece of turf were thrown at the ladies. As to the scenes on the Meadows, the disturbances led to an appearance of two of the agitators at the Magistrates Court under the news banner, Disorderly Scenes at a Suffragette Meeting. Stamford Men Summoned. Amusing Evidence. Clearly the editor, or the compositor, or the reporter should have picked up that the Meeting had been held by Suffragists and not Suffragettes. The whole report mentioning Suffragettes. Two men were ordered to appear before the Magistrates on Saturday (July 19th 1913) on charges of improper conduct on the occasion of the Suffragettes meeting in the Meadows last week. They were Robert Stafford, 3 East-street, who was summoned for using indecent language, and Naaman Briggs, of 1 Zebra Cottages, against whom there was a charge of being drunk and disorderly. With regard to Stafford, P.c. Holgate stated that the man was very much under the influence of drink, and was creating annoyance by swearing and shouting. One man went to him and asked him to be quiet, whereupon defendant said words telling him in effect, to get out of the way. The defendant pushed about, and a man of about 50 years of age was knocked down. If the crowd had come that way, the constable feared the man would doubtless have been seriously injured. Supt. Theaker informed the Court that Stafford had been before the Magistrates seven times previously, and said he desired to press the case, as the language used by the defendant could only be described as vile. A fine of 10 shillings, with 7 shillings costs was imposed. The man Briggs created some amusement by a quaint saying. Asked whether he was guilty of being drunk and disorderly on the occasion referred to, he said, “I reckon I had a drop of beer, but I was not disorderly.” After P.c. Pacey had been sworn, Briggs said “Now, what did I say?” but he was told to be quiet. The officer told the Bench that the defendant, who was very drunk, was shouting and pushing about among the crowd. He called out “Mrs Pankhurst , ***** her.” Someone near asked him to be quiet, whereupon he expressed the hope that the suffragists would be in a much warmer place than the defendant, said the constable, continued this sort of thing for something like twenty minutes, pushing both women and men about, and although witness spoke to him he took no notice whatever. Defendant: What did you say when you brought me the summons? Didn’t you say go straight home when you spoke to me? The Constable: I never said anything of the sort. Defendant: None of your “guyfly.”(Laughter) I did nothing but shout Mrs Pankhurst! The Clerk: You can only ask the witness a question. Defendant: Was I drunk? The Constable: Certainly. Defendant: Then why didn’t you lock me up? The Constable: I gave you a chance to get home. Defendant: If I was drunk I couldn’t have got home. Briggs added that he went out shopping before he went home at half-past nine. Turning to P.c. Pacey, he said “Tell a straight tale.” Supt. Theaker, who was also present at the Meeting, supported the evidence of the constable, and said, that the man was frequently asked to go home by several in the crowd. Defendant: That was Daddy Hopkins. (Laughter). The Inspector: continuing said the defendant’s conduct was very bad indeed. There were several there who were rather disorderly, but he didn’t take much notice of that; in a case of this kind, however, where very bad language was used he considered it his duty to bring it before the notice of the Bench. The Chairman (to the Defendant): Have you anything to say? Defendant I expect I have got to pay, but I don’t want to pay much. (Laughter). I ain’t ??? a deal. (Laughter). This is the first time I’ve been here, and it would take a different suffragette meeting from that to get me here again. (Laughter). Defendant added: I saved the women. They were pelting at me instead of the women. (Laughter). While the Magistrates were considering the verdict the defendant caused further amusement by asking, “Have they done with me now, here? The Justices imposed a fine of 5 shillings, including costs, and the Mayor expressed the hope that this case would be a warning to him in the future remarking that if he kept from the drink he would be all right. Defendant: But I started young sir. (Laughter). Supt. Theaker: Are you going to pay? Defendant: No; shall you trust me? He was allowed a week. The Great Pilgrimage was a protest march in favour of votes for women and against militancy and was arguably the single most influential non-violent event in the fight for votes. It created an environment across the country, especially where meetings were held, of open debate of the subject rather than the newsworthy reports of broken windows, arson and hunger strikes. Previously it was as if any disaster could be blamed on the Suffragettes. Stamford was no different. Back on Thursday May 22nd 1913 two separate fires one at the Wesleyan Chapel on Barn Hill and another in the stables behind the Stamford Hotel created rumours in the town that those ‘damn suffragettes’ were involved. Suddenly in the minds of some, a woman should not be allowed out with a box of matches. Stamford had a population of around 9.500 people in 1913, between 2,000 and 3,000 attended the meeting on the Meadows that Saturday evening. Let us hope that the majority supported female suffrage. Sources 'By the Way’ Comment Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p7/c1 Suffragettes Poem Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p7/c2 Unionist Women Franchise Meeting Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p8/c1&2 Suffragists Visit To Stamford Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p8/c4&5 Women Suffragists in Stamford Stamford & District News July 16th 1913 p5/c2 Stamford Men Summoned Stamford & District News July 23rd 1913 p5/c1 Suffragettes On Tour Stamford Mercury July 18th 1913 p4/c4 Notes: Stamford & District News published on Wednesdays Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury on Friday Stamford & Rutland Guardian published on Saturdays The first names/initials of the women at the Conservative and Unionist meeting were added from the Stamford & District News of July 23rd 1913 p7/c1. For more background information on this topic the recently published book by Jane Robinson; Hearts And Minds. The Untold Story of the Great Pilgrimage and How Women Won the Vote , is a MUST read. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next