< 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

1902 Stamford Medal BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL 1902 Stamford Medal Key Details of the 1902 Stamford Medal The displayed object is a bronze commemorative medal issued by the Borough of Stamford to mark the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra on June 26, 1902, featuring the town's coat of arms and naming the mayor at the time, Chas Gray. Obverse: Bears the right-facing crowned profiles of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra with the text "KING EDWARD VII QUEEN ALEXANDRA". Reverse: Shows the Stamford town coat of arms flanked by supporters, inscribed with "BOROUGH OF STAMFORD," "CHAs GRAY J.P. MAYOR," and "CORONATION, JUNE 26th, 1902". Composition & Size: Struck in bronze with a diameter of approximately 32 mm, and often features a small hole at the top for suspension. The history of Chas Gray as Mayor of Stamford Charles Gray J.P. was an iron merchant who served as the Mayor of Stamford from 1900 to 1902, famously leading the town's civic celebrations during the historic Coronation of King Edward VII. Historical & Civic Timeline · Early Life and Business: Born in nearby Peterborough in 1856, Gray relocated to Stamford in 1883. He established himself as a prominent local businessman, operating a successful trade as an iron merchant. · Rise in Public Office: He entered local governance later in life. He was appointed a Justice of the Peace (J.P.) in 1897 and won election to the Stamford Town Council in 1898. The Mayoralty: He was chosen as Mayor in 1900. Due to his popularity and the impending coronation, the council re-elected him on 9 November 1901 to ensure he would lead the borough through the historic "Coronation Year" events of 1902. · The 1902 Coronation Milestone: As Mayor, Gray chaired the full council sessions and orchestrated Stamford’s public festivities. Because the Borough of Stamford is historically permitted to use the Royal Arms on its municipal surcoat, Gray commissioned the special bronze coronation medals to showcase the town's unique heritage and mark the coronation date of 26 June 1902. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed in Articles and Snippets are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Stamford Local History Society. This website has links to other websites which are not under the control of Stamford Local History Society. We have no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views of any contributor or website. All content on this website is intended for personal educational and informational purposes. Articles and Snippets can be downloaded for personal use only and permission from Stamford Local History Society must be sought for any other use.

Jeffery & Blackstone BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Jeffery & Blackstone – Royal Letters Patent Plate 1884 The firm that became Blackstone & Co started back in 1837 by members of the Smith family. Following several ownership and name changes George Jeffery entered into partnership with Edward Christopher Blackstone in 1877 and although George retired to Ryhall in 1882 the company continued as Jeffery & Blackstone until 1888. During these years the company works was sited at the west end of St. Peter’s Street, including Bonney’s Paddock which was leased from Stamford Borough Council and traded as the Rutland Terrace Iron Works, New Iron and Brass Foundry and Agricultural Manufactory. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

Become a member of The Stamford Local History Society and enjoy learning more about the history of our town. Sign up today. MEMBERSHIP Use this form to become a member of the Stamford Local History Society The subscription includes reduced charges for talks, outings and events, and free entrance to members' evenings. The cost is £10 pa for individuals. Payment can be made by BACS using the bank details below or can be collected when you attend your first meeting when this form will be ready for you to sign. First name Last name Email Street Address Street Address Line 2 City Postal / Zip code Phone Select a date By submitting this form you agree to our privacy policy the details of which can be read HERE . You will confirm this agreement when signing this application form at your first meeting. Bank Details Stamford Local History Society Lloyds Bank, High St., Stamford A/c no. 18502460 Sort code. 30-84-84 Register

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

Tradesmen's Tokens BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Stamford Tradesmen's Tokens From the mid-17 th century to end of the 19 th century many tradesmen in the town issued their own coinage in the form of small change tokens. Here are three examples from the mid-17 th century HSR HUMPHREY REYNOLDS FMB FRANCIS BLYTH WSW WILLIAM WALKER DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

John Brumhead BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL John Brumhead - Longcase Clock The Brumhead family, father, wife and son ran a successful clock, watch and silversmith business on St. John’s Street. John Brumhead senior died in December 1809 to be succeeded by his wife Mary who carried on the trade in St. John’s Street. In September 1825 her son John Brumhead junior took over from his mother and continued to trade until the late 1840s. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

< Back Hearth Tax Return for St Martin's, Stamford - 31st July 1663 Professor Alan Roger THE HEARTH TAX RETURN FOR THE LIBERTY OF NASSABURGH, FOR 31st JULY, 1663 [Stamford St Martin's section only in this extract] note by Tim Halliday of Peterborough. Stamford Survey Group wish to thank him for permission to reproduce the Stamford section of these returns. INTRODUCTORY NOTE This is the earliest hearth tax return surviving for any part of Northamptonshire and is now to be found in the Public Record Office under reference PRO/E179/254/12. The date of the Return is a little misleading in that the regnal year is stated on the first membrane to be 4 Charles II, whereas it was made in the fourth year of the King's return to England, namely 1663, being more correctly 12 Charles II. The manuscript consists of twelve rotulets stitched together at the head and the title given above is intended literally, since it covers the whole of Nassaburgh but no other hundreds of Northamptonshire. The manuscript is in very good condition throughout. The Return is divided into separate sections for each ward of the City of Peterborough and each vill or hamlet outside the urban area of the City. At the end of each such section, the manuscript provides a total, which refers to the number of hearths therein. The totals of entries provided in italics at the end of each section have been added to the transcript so as to show the number of buildings assessed in each such ward, vill or hamlet. The entries for Peterborough and its hamlets, including Eye, are grouped together in an orderly manner, then Paston and its hamlets, followed by Glinton and Peakirk (which two ecclesiastical parishes form one manor) but thereafter the entries follow an itinerary passing backwards and forwards across the northern part of the Liberty, hamlets often appearing before their mother villages or quite apart from them, before the itinerary reaches Stamford St Martin's, after which it progresses south through the western parishes to Wansford, then east through the hamlets of Castor before terminating with Castor itself. T M H, 1986 [ Mem 10] St.Martin's Stamford Baron Fyer Harths 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 Browne's Hospital Property; an 1845 terrier Prof Alan Rogers Browne's Hospital was a major Stamford charity which besides the hospital, bearing its name, on Broad Street was also a major land and property owner. The PDF below is a copy of the terrier compiled in 1845 of all of the property owned by Browne's Hospital in the town of Stamford. It does not include the significant parcels of land outside of the towm walls and in other locations further afield. Land owned north of the town in what was called the Open Fields was enclosed in 1875. The document below is important as it contains descriptions, site plans, names of tenants and names of owners of adjacent properties. A copy of the terrier can be accessed HERE Previous Next

< Back Parliamentary Election 1847 (Hustings and Poll) Chris Hunt 2022 On Friday July 30th 1847 the hustings for the Parliamentary election in Stamford were erected in Broad Street for the candidates to present themselves for nomination before the electors of the Borough. It was the first true contested election in the town for nearly forty years and the growing unrest in both the middle and lower classes uniting against the Burghley interest meant that there was a real possibility of political change. Both believed that the economic future was dependent on the London to York railway passing through the town and that the Marquis of Exeter was working to prevent such a route. An expansion of the town and its numbers of voters would have of course destroyed for ever his control. The independent minded amongst the Borough Council had found John Rolt Esquire as a candidate and using the George and Angel on St Mary’s Street as a base began their campaign with the support of Alderman Richard Newcomb – owner and proprietor of the Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. On the day of the hustings Mr Rolt and his supporters met up at the George and Angel to march to Broad Street, by the time they got there the crowd numbered close to two thousand. Lord Exeter’s nominees – the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries arrived slightly later with few supporters who were shouted at and hissed by the crowd. It was reported in the Stamford Mercury that all the remarks were in ‘good humour’. Once the initial formalities had been completed the nominations began. Doctor Hopkinson nominated the Marquis of Granby stating that the Marquis was a fit person to represent the town and having done so these last ten years. However, within his speech he highlighted a bill signed: ‘An Elector, to which it was stated that the Noble Lord’s and Mr Herries’s friends had been guilty of exercising undue influence. He begged distinctly to say that no influence of the kind had been put into practise’. This was met by cheers which were soon drowned out with hissing and cries of ‘It has’. Mr Cayley seconded the nomination speaking of the ability and integrity of the Marquis of Granby; however, most of his speech was drowned out by the crowd. Mr C.Haycock then proposed the Right Honourable John Charles Herries of Sevenoaks, Kent; as the second candidate for Stamford. The crowd by now had found its voice and it was a while before he began to speak. Much of which was drowned out by the crowd. Mr Henry Chase Atlay seconded the nomination. Mr Hatfield then came forward to nominate Mr Rolt, he was met with much cheering at which he stated that it was time that Stamford had its own representative. He stated that the question had to be considered ‘whether Lord Exeter should continue to usurp the power of returning both their members’. ‘it was a shame that any attempt should be made to prevent the electors to having at least some share in the choice’. He then reminded the crowd, although it was probably as much as a message to the Burghley candidates ‘that there was a standing order of the House of Commons which made it a high infringement of the Liberties of the People for a Peer of Parliament to interfere in elections to the House of Commons’. He reminded the crowd that such influence of the aristocracy would be able by legislation to coerce both the Crown and the People. He then stated that ‘it was a maxim of the constitution that the People should not be taxed without their consent; but that principle became an absurdity when the electors were prevented from choosing whom they thought proper to vote the taxes, and were threaten with pains and penalties, which being turned out of their houses, or deprived of their trade or means of living, if they made a free and conscientious selection’. He then stated that suffrage was not given as a right for a man’s own benefit, it was a privilege for the benefit of his fellow man. He then spoke of the loss of freemen’s right because of a lack of proper representation, an issue which closely touched on the majority of the adult male population of the town. Whether or not they had the vote. In finishing his speech he raised the issue of the mainline railway passing through the town and; ‘to serious loss the town was likely to experience by the carrying to a distance of the Great Northern Railway through the Marquis of Exeter’s opposition to it from pecuniary motives’. In proving this point he reminded the crowd how the Marquis had offered land to the railway company at ‘monstrous terms’ compared with prices he had been willing to buy land only a few years previous. Mr G.H.Betts then seconded Mr Rolt’s nomination. After mentioning issues around the Corn Law and Game Laws he too raised the issue of the north-south railway and ‘the scandalous manner in which the town had been cheated out of the advantages of railway communication from North to South’. The support of the gathered crowd at the hustings was very much in support of John Rolt for when the Marquis of Granby addressed the crowd he was met with a ‘storm of hissing’. When he finally spoke he attempted to defend his position on the Great Northern Railway, he had met a deputation from Stamford on the matter and that he had told them ‘that he would consult Lord Exeter on the subject’ produced laughter in the crowd. He then stated that ‘in doing so, he believed he had acted honourably and fairly’, a wag in the crowd was recorded as heckling; “Yes, to Lord Exeter, but not to the town’. When asked by Mr Tebbutt whether the Marquis would support the railway bill if it was reintroduced, stated ‘I will pledge myself to nothing’. He then stated that he had supported the increase to the Maynooth Grant - a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland - , alterations to the Corn Laws and the Ten-Hours Factory Bill. Mr Herries then addressed the crowd and he too was met with much hissing and groans. He stated that he had twenty-year’s service in Parliament of which ten years had been as a minister, latterly as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that Stamford was exempt from corruption which antagonised the crowd. There was more heckling about why having been elected eight times for Harwich he was now standing in Stamford. His view on secret ballots when asked by an electorate was that such a change would be against the ‘honesty of Englishmen’. After stating that those who had the vote should use them and those who do not should make no noise, so aggravated the crowd that the cry that ‘You have insulted the nonvoters and so we will not hear you’ was the end of his address. He just gave up. Mr Rolt then addressed the crowd. He stated that he would come ‘to the great question’, which was ‘whether the constituency of Stamford should be free’. He reported to the crowd that he had spoken to many of them and that he had been told that although they wanted him to be elected to Parliament they could not vote for him because of their fears of ‘ejected from their houses or lose some of their customers’. His view on the Corn Laws was that they should be given a fair trial and if they if they were not of benefit and led to the ruin of agricultural interests then there should be a return to protectionism. He also stated that he supported the use of public taxes for the education of the People. Mr Rolt then touched on other aspects, including, the Maynooth grant, the Health of Towns Bill, the Poor Law, the Great Northern Railway measure; his views on these matters being supported by the crowd. He finally asked the Electors to ‘assert their independence’ in voting for him. The nominations being received the call for the vote was heard and the Mayor declared Mr Rolt and the Marquis of Granby elected. At this point Mr Haycock on behalf of Mr Herries demanded a poll. Mr Rolt was then escorted by a large crowd to his residence in Rock Terrace and on the Friday evening he addressed a meeting at the George and Angel. The polling commenced on Saturday morning at about 8.00am and was carried on till about 11.00am, all the time the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries being in front. Shortly after 2.00pm with the populous become more and more tumultuous and Mr Rolt realising that there was insufficient votes still to be polled agreed to ‘resign the contest’. After the books were closed the Mayor declared that the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries had been elected and the votes cast were: For the Marquis of Granby 359 For Mr Herries 290 For Mr Rolt 234 The Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries after saying a few words at the Stamford Hotel after Mr Rolt resigned the contest left Stamford by train to London via Cambridge before the vote was declared. Whilst Mr Rolt addressed a large crowd at the George and Angel stating that he would be willing to stand again in the Borough and that the reason for his defeat was that twenty-three voters had promised to vote on his behalf but had been ‘induced by customary means’ to vote for Mr Herries and that others who had stated that they were going to remain neutral recorded their votes for the Burghley nominees. The following week it was being reported in the Stamford Mercury how the recent contested election had passed so quietly. Although, it was noted that by some that they would have voted differently if the Marquis of Exeter’s agents had not been present. Unfortunately, the political future in Stamford over the next few years was hardly quiet. Resulting in violence at subsequent Municipal elections, alleged corruption in the ‘buying of votes’, Burghley Tenants thrown out of their homes, and an investigation of the Parliamentary election by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Chris Hunt A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next