< 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

Here you will find useful links to other websites of interest. Join The Stamford Local History Society and enjoy talks and visits around our local area. LINKS Below are links to other websites relating to Stamford and the surrounding area which may be of interest. Published Articles Can be downloaded here Open Document Lincs to the Past Lincolnshire archives View Website Stamford Civic Society local civic society View Website The Stamford Mercury Archive Trust newspaper archive View Archive Browne's Hospital Stamford historical almshouse View Website Portable Antiquities Scheme British Museum View Website Stamford Town Hall local council View Website West Deeping Heritage Group local history society View Website Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology academic research View research Collyweston Historical and Preservation Society local history society View Website Stamford Boys of 1911 from the 1911 census View Website Deepings Heritage local history society View Website Rutland Local History & Record Society local history society View Website East Midlands History and Heritage East Midland's heritage View Website John Clare Society National History Society View Website

< Back A print copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford Library Catalogue 1907 By Chris Hunt In these days of computerised digital online catalogues, we forget that at one time the only way to access information was via the printed or written word. In the case of Stamford Public Library, before World War One, it was possible to buy a small booklet containing a full list of its holdings, and this extended to a small printed book. In 1907 the paperback edition sold for three half pennies (old money) and was printed by Dolby Brothers. The previous year’s edition was printed by Taylor and Downs and could be bought in hard back as well. The 1907 the catalogue was split into eight parts: Fiction and Light Literature; Voyages and Travels; Science, Arts and Politics; Theology and Philosophy; History and Biography; General Literature; Poetry and the Drama, and a List of Books on Open Shelves. Whilst Francis Peck’s Annals of Stamford (published in 1727), British Museum Publications and Pictures of Nuremburg were available on request. Stamford Library still has a copy of Francis Peck’s Annals of Stamford in its Local History Reference Collection; the 1979 EP reprint is on open shelves and is available to borrow. By the time of the Annual Report in May 1907 the Library had enrolled 1,047 people. During the previous 12 months, 28,279 books had been issued of which 25,169 had been works of fiction. The total holdings of books on March 31 st 1907 were 2,312, and in addition the Reading Room had 275 periodicals. Chris Hunt January 2026 Note The following document is r eproduced by kind permission of Lincolnshire Libraries. The original was printed by Dolby Brothers in 1907, and is part of the local studies reference collection at Stamford Library, www.better.org.uk/library/lincolnshire/stamford-library A print version can be downloaded HERE A full printout of the library catalogue can be viewed & printed HERE Previous Next

< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

WW1 Death Penny BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL William Henry Dawtry - World War One Death Penny William Henry Dawtry was born and lived his childhood at 24 St. Leonard’s Street before leaving school and joining the Army. As a regular soldier and in barracks on the Isle of Wight in the summer of 1914 he was a member of the British Expeditionary Force that sailed for France and moved north towards Mons in August 1914. As a member of the Royal Army Medical Corp attached to a Cavalry Regiment, he was very close to the front line when he was killed in action from shrapnel wounds on September 29th 1914. William has no known grave and his name is recorded close to where he fell at Seine-et-Marne LA FETTE-SOUS JOUARRE Memorial. He was buried in a field near Villers En Prayeres close to a sugar factory on the River Aisne. In the words of Rupert Brooke If I should die, think only this of me: That there’s some corner of a foreign field: That is for ever England … William is remembered on the War Memorial in St George’s Church and the Town’s War Memorial in Broad Street. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

the townspeople, millers and the Cecils < Back The Cecil's Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 Dr D.L. Thomas 1982 In this article (first published in the Stamford Historian in 1982) Dr. D. L. Thomas examines the Cecil monopoly on milling in Stamford during the late 16th and early 17th centuries; and looks at the disputes between the townspeople, the Cecil family and other millers in the area. The Cecil Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 Sleepy King’s Mill was, in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a source of bitter disputes between the townspeople, the Cecil family and other millers in the neighbourhood. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth granted her principal secretary, Sir William Cecil, the manor of Stamford, the tolls and profits of the markets in Stamford, together with certain water mills in Stamford called North Mills situated next to the castle.[1] This grant marked an important stage in Cecil’s domination of the town, which had a profound effect on the development of Stamford. [2] The mills acquired by Cecil, referred to as North Mills in the grant, were also known as ‘the queen’s mills’, presumably because they had been granted to the unfortunate Jane Seymour as part of her jointure. By 1627, the property was also being referred to as King’s Mill.[3] Ownership of the mill gave the Cecils a theoretical monopoly of milling in the town. All inhabitants of the town and borough and all tenants of the manor of Stamford were obliged by custom ‘the tyme whereof the memory of man ys not to the contrary’, to grind all their corn and malt at King’s mill.[4] There was another mill in the town called Hudd’s Mill which was owned by the corporation. This can perhaps be characterized as a ‘marginal mill’. It had been built to provide additional grinding capacity in the town at times when King’s Mill was over-burdened. Tenants and inhabitants of Stamford had to obtain the permission of the owner of King’s Mill to take their corn to Hudd’s Mill.[5] This monopoly seems to have been resented by the inhabitants of Stamford and the Cecils had to obtain the support of the Court of Exchequer to enforce it. As far as can be judged – and relevant evidence is somewhat scanty, the people of Stamford were not opposed to the Cecil monopoly because the Cecils were harsh and greedy monopolists. Rather, they were inconvenienced by the monopoly because King’s Mill was too small to deal with all the corn and malt of the inhabitants of Stamford. Rather than wait long periods for their corn and malt to be ground, they used other mills. In 1601, Sir Thomas Cecil, Lord Burghley, brought an action in the Exchequer to defend his monopoly. He claimed that Thomas Robinson, the miller of Ryhall, and Gregory Harlington, the miller of Casterton, kept pack-horses ‘and doe contynuallie fetch, carie and recary the corne and gristes of the Inhabitants of the said towne and borough of Stamford.... to the great losse and hinderaunce of your said orator, his ten(a)ntes and ffermors’. William Salter had built a horse mill in Stamford where he ground his own corn and that of other inhabitants. Various residents of the town had set up querns or hand mills, while others simply refused ‘to grynde their corne and grists att the said water mylnes contrary to auncient usage and custome of the towne’.[6] The occupations of the recalcitrant Stamfordians are revealing. Among those to have set up querns were three innkeepers, George Parysh, Lionel Fetherstone and Jeffrey Harrupp alias Baker. These men presumably wanted querns to grind malt for brewing. William Winckes, a baker, was one who had refused to use Cecil’s mill. The other people against whom Cecil brought action were Nicholas Lambe, a draper, Robert Meadows and Robert Ramsden, mercers, Robert Storer, a carpenter, John Smithson, a cordwainer and two ‘gentlemen’, Reynold Waters and John Caldecote of Ketton. The inhabitants of Stamford made no defence to Cecil’s action, admitting their faults and submitting to the judgement of the court. The fact that the Stamfordians did not make any counter-claim against Cecil is probably an indication that Cecil was not too greedy a monopolist. The Exchequer, although willing to enforce local monopolies, normally took care to ensure that they were administered reasonably. In 1589, the Exchequer had ordered that the tenants and inhabitants of Grantham should grind their corn at the queen’s mill in Grantham, but had ordered the court-leet of Grantham to fine millers if they oppressed any of the tenants.[7] The Exchequer decreed that the defendants and all other inhabitants of Stamford should grind all their corn and grain at Cecil’s mill and ‘shall continewe their suits to the said mylnes called the Queenes mills in such sorte as they have of auncient tyme used and accustomed to doe’.[8] Immediate opposition to this decree seems to have come from Thomas Robinson, miller of Ryhall. In his answer to Cecil’s action, he claimed that if he could not obtain grain from Stamford, his mill ‘will not bee half the weeke sett on worke and thereby fall to great ruine and decaye’. He admitted that he was only the sub-tenant of Ryhall mill; the ultimate owner of the mill was none other than Thomas Cecil. Robinson said that ‘in testymonye of the great reverence and duetie that in all humbleness he acknowledgeth to beare’ to Cecil, he would not, in future, grind any grain from Stamford ‘though to hys great hinderance and losses beinge a very poore mann’.[9] Nine months later, the Exchequer heard that Robinson was still carrying corn from Stamford, William Winckes was still not bringing grain to King’s Mill and the other defendants were still using their querns. The court ordered the arrest of the defendants.[10] The threat of further action seems to have achieved the desired effect; there is no evidence of any further proceedings in this case. A monopoly, however, was still a monopoly and by the reign of Charles I, it was once more under attack. In 1639, William, Earl of Exeter, brought an action in the Exchequer against 234 inhabitants of Stamford. He claimed that they had combined amongst themselves with the purpose of destroying his monopoly. Various of them had sent their corn to be ground at Hudd’s Mill without Exeter’s permission, others had sent their corn outside the town to be ground, while some had set up querns and horsemills within the town. Worse, the banks and sluices at Hudds Mill had been extended, with the result that ‘by often and sudden stoppinge and lettinge downe of the said fludgates and sluces, the said complainant’s said mills lyinge on the same streame above the said hudds mill had been oftentimes held in by back waters and soe choaked therewith that they were not able to goe’. The Stamfordians for the most part fared better than they had done in 1601. They agreed that they were obliged to grind their corn at Exeter’s mill; the court ordered that all querns and horsemills within the town be demolished, while the court also considered taking action to end the problems caused by the developments at Hudd’s Mill. There was, however, one major concession; Exeter was ordered to grind the Stamfordians’ corn within due and reasonable time.[11] A few Stamfordians fared rather better, probably as a result of good legal advice. The Exchequer could compel tenants of Stamford manor and inhabitants of the town to grind their corn at King’s Mill. There were however, a number of tenants of other manors within Stamford; the Exchequer could not compel these people to grind their corn at King’s Mill, because as manorial tenants, they were obliged to grind their corn at the mill belonging to the lord of their manor. Thus it was that certain tenants who held land of the crown’s manor of East Greenwich and the Dutchy of Lancaster’s honour of Bolingbroke were given liberty to grind their corn where they saw fit.[12] This liberty was also granted to tenants of ‘Cuthbert’s Fee’ ; this was a manor which had belonged to St. Leonard’s Priory; curiously enough, it belonged to the Cecil family.[13] Eight tenants of ‘town houses’ belonging to the corporation were also given liberty to grind their corn where they saw fit. The Exchequer’s decree was rigorously enforced. In 1642, Elizabeth, Countess of Exeter, complained that Nicolas Lambe, a brewer, had been grinding malt at his own horse mill. The Exchequer committed Lambe to the Fleet prison until his mill was demolished.[14] Exeter also sought to deal with millers from outside the town. In 1637, he brought an action against William Robinson, tenant of Tinwell mill and Sir Francis Bodenham, tenant of Ryhall mill. Exeter claimed that these men had charged half the normal rate for grinding corn and had carried corn from Stamford to grind at their mills.[15] Bodenham quickly admitted his fault and submitted to Exeter. This was hardly surprising; Bodenham leased Ryhall mill from Exeter and needed Exeter’s support to maintain his monopoly of milling in Ryhall. In 1640, Exeter and Bodenham brought an action against the millers of Tolethorpe, Newstead, Tinwell and Tallington for grinding corn from Ryhall. William Robinson’s case was somewhat different. Tinwell mill belonged to Exeter and had been leased to Robinson in 1631. Robinson had rebuilt the mill, doubling its size from two pairs of stones to four pairs. Exeter claimed that Robinson was grinding corn from Stamford. Worse, by expanding his mill dam, Robinson was depriving King’s Mill of water so ‘that oft tymes the said Earles milles in Stamford cannot grinde for fowre and twentie howers together and usuallie in sumer are hindred from working eighte howers together in everye daie.’ At other times, Robinson would suddenly open his sluice gates ‘whereby the waters gushing downe the streame in great quantities with muche violence doe overflowe and breake the Bankes of the saide Earles mill dames’.[17] Robinson’s defence is very revealing. He denied that he had unlawfully expanded his mill dam and claimed that the expansion of Tinwell mill had been done with the permission of Exeter. He argued that his expansion of Tinwell mill was done for the good of the inhabitants of Stamford. He argued that because of lack of water and because it only had a small dam, King’s Mill could not (especially in summer) grind all the corn of the inhabitants of Stamford.[18] Robinson’s argument illuminates the long dispute between the Cecils and the residents of Stamford. It may well be that local opposition to the Cecil’s monopoly was stimulated because King’s Mill was not large enough to cope with all the grain of the people of Stamford. The Exchequer decree in the case of Exeter against the inhabitants of Stamford had insisted that the millers of King’s Mill grind the corn of the inhabitants of Stamford within due and reasonable time. The decree in the case of Exeter against Robinson, issued a year later on 11th May 1640, went even further. The Exchequer decreed that the inhabitants and residents of Stamford must bring their corn and grain to be ground at King’s Mill ‘provided that it cannot bee ground there within eight and ffortie howers that then they may take it awaye to bee ground elswhere’.[19] This proviso seems to have satisfied all parties and, as far as is known at present, the dispute was ended. Notes Calendar of Patent Rolls 1560-1563, 165-166. On the long-term impact of the Cecils’ control of the town, see J.M. Lee, Modern Stamford in Alan Rogers, ed., The Making of Stamford (Leicester 1965). 91-104 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of Historical Monuments: The Town of Stamford (London 1977), 65. Public Record Office, Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Bills, Answers, etc. (E112/25/287) All references to documents are to records preserved in the Public Record Office. Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Entry Books of Decrees and Orders, Series III (E125/26f.158r). E112/25/287. Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Entry Books of Decrees and Orders. Series I (E123/14 f.309r) E123/28 fos.151-152 E112/25/287. E123/28 f.337 E125/26 fos.157-162; the proceedings in the case do not seem to survive On tenture as of the manor of East Greenwich, see Joel Hurstfield, The Greenwich Tenures of the Reign of Edward VI, Law Quarterly Review , LXV (1949), 72-81; such tenants were normally people who held land which had been sold by the crown. Thomas Tanner, Notitia Monastica, ed. by James Naismith (Cambridge, 1737) sub Lincoln LXXII E125/29 fos. 153r, 182v-183v E112/200/192 E112/202/279 E112/200/192 Ibid. And E112/202/283 E125/26 f. 438v 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 George Longstaff and Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacture in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Brief History of the Clay Pipe industry The manufacture of clay tobacco pipes began in England in the 16th century soon after the introduction of tobacco from North America by Sir Francis Drake . [1] London took the lead in producing pipes, followed by Bristol, and the industry quickly spread throughout the country, so that b y the mid-17th century clay pipe making was a well-established trade nationally. [2] The South West of England, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, was the primary source of the white earthenware clay used throughout the pipe making process. Pipe smoking was common amongst all classes but the fortunes of the industry fluctuated early on in response to opposing factors such as the punitive tobacco tax of 1604 and the granting of a charter to the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers in 1619, [3] as well as to disruption by the English Civil War. [4] After smoking was temporarily supplanted by snuff in fashionable circles in the 18th century, [5] there was a resurgence of pipe making from about 1820. [6] However, a s cigarettes, cigars and wooden pipes subsequently became more popular, the industry went into terminal decline and few clay pipe-making businesses survived into the 20th century. [7] Clay Pipe Making in Stamford Pipe making reached Lincolnshire around 1640 [8] and clay pipes may have been being produced in Stamford by 1665. [9] The earliest trader of pipes in Stamford was Francis Barnewell, a surgeon and tobacconist, but it is unlikely that he made pipes himself, more probably bringing them in from London. [10] The first recorded pipe-maker was William Whitehead who was active in 1673 [11] and worked in the trade for about twenty years. [12] Several other pipe makers followed for short periods. [13] Robert Collington (d.1733), a grocer, imported clay from the Isle of Wight and Thanet [14] for the local pipe makers up to about 1716 [15] and later set up his own pipe-making business.[16] He may have been the only pipe maker working in Stamford at that time. Production of clay tobacco pipes in Stamford occurred mainly during the periods 1650-1745 and 1815-1895. [17] Between these times, because of falling demand, no pipe makers were recorded in the Stamford Hall books, either as freemen or apprentices, from about 1745 until 1817. [18] After Robert Middleton (1789-c.1860) entered the trade in 1817, [19] he and his family became the sole makers of pipes in the town until 1849. [20] His business on North Street was then taken over by George Longstaff. [21] George Longstaff (1815-1875) George Longstaff was the principal clay tobacco pipe-maker in Stamford during the third quarter of the 19th century. Born in 1815 in Spalding, he was the fifth of ten children of Henry Longstaff and his wife Ann (nee Sewell). All five sons became pipe makers, with at least four of them, Thomas Staveley, Charles, George and Sewell becoming masters and William and James being employed by other master pipe makers. George learnt his trade in Spalding before moving to Stamford, where he married Mary Larks (d.1916) at All Saints Church in 1846. They had eight children. [22] On taking control in 1849, George acquired Robert Middleton’s kiln, workshop and two-storey house on North Street. It was the only kiln operating in the town at the time [23] and he was assisted in running the business by his wife Mary and younger brother Sewell (b.1828). Robert Middleton’s youngest son, also called Robert, stayed on and worked for the Longstaffs for several years, most likely until at least 1863. [24] Other former Middleton employees who stayed on included William Henry Taylor and Robert Andrews. [25] Peter Cole and James Lees may also have worked for George Longstaff for a while. [26] It is evident that the business thrived as George submitted plans in 1873 to extend the kiln. [27] Although the Longstaffs remained in the same home, their address changed to 15 and 16 Elm Street after the east end of North Street was renamed East Street in about 1868 and the small lane between East Street and Broad Street became Elm Street. [28] Another of George’s brothers, Willliam (c.1817- bef.1881), was also working as a pipe-maker in Stamford in 1851, but for whom is uncertain. It is not known from where George Longstaff obtained his raw materials but one nearby source of tobacco pipe clay was the extensive pits at Northampton whose black or grey-coloured clay was exported to neighbouring and more distant counties. When such supplies were exhausted, the business may have used Devon clay. [29] Longstaff was not known to have used the brownish-coloured local clay, although Samuel Saunders who was a pipe maker in Stamford Baron in the late 17th and early 18th centuries occasionally did so. [30] George Longstaff marked most of his pipes 'GL' on the sides of the spur [31] and he was the only member of the family to add his personal insignia apart from Thomas Staveley Longstaff who stamped 'LONGSTAFF' upon the bowls of his pipes. [32] After George’s death in 1875, aged 59 years, his widow Mary took over the running of the business until at least 1892. However, by then, the industry was in sharp decline and falling demand forced her to cease manufacture and close down the kiln. [33] Efforts by the Longstaff Bros, probably George and Mary’s sons, A. and Jabez, to revive the business in 1896 proved futile [34] and most pipe-makers had shut down by end of the 19th century. The Longstaff’s brick-built clay pipe kiln was discovered in 1972 during building work on North Street, at the rear of Stamford School. [35] Fate of Clay Pipes The lifespan of clay pipes was relatively short. C onsidering the huge numbers produced, along with their fragility and disposable nature, it is unsurprising that intact or fragmentary examples are regularly found in rubbish dumps, on agricultural land, and in parks and domestic gardens, often carried there in midden waste or soil imported from elsewhere. [36] There have been major finds of clay tobacco pipes at several sites in Stamford, including that of the North Street kiln, the River Welland and Stamford Racecourse. [37] A small number of these pipes were made by George Longstaff. Clay tobacco pipe found in the Stamford area [Photo Nicholas J Sheehan] A print version can be downloaded HERE ------------------------------------------------------ [1] National Pipe Archive. Worcester and Clay Tobacco Pipes. http://www.pipearchive.co.uk› publications [2] Carpenter, Daniel. Clay pipe making. Heritage Crafts . April 26, 2017 [3] Oswald, Adrian. The Evolution and Chronology of English Clay Tobacco Pipes. Archaeological News Letter. Vol 7. No.3. September 1961. p.55 [4] National Pipe Archive [5] Oswald [6] Wells, Peter K. The Pipemakers of Lincolnshire. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.123 [7] Carpenter [8] Wells, p.123 [9] Comrie, A C. The Clay Tobacco Pipe Industry in Stamford. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.187 [10] Comrie, p.187-8 [11] Wells, p.160 [12] Comrie, p.188 [13] Comrie, p.188 [14] Comrie, p.193 [15] Comrie, p.188 [16] Wells, p.161 [17] Comrie, p.187 [18]Comrie, p.188 [19] Comrie, pp.194-5 [20] Comrie, p.188 [21] Wells, p.161 [22] Hammond, Peter. The Longstaff Family of Tobacco Pipemakers. Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 70. Autumn/ Winter 2006. pp.11-14 [23] Comrie, pp.194-6 [24] Comrie, p.195 [25] Comrie, p.197 [26] Comrie, p.199 [27] Wells, p.161 [28] Comrie, p.198 [29] Moore, W R G. Northamptonshire Clay Tobacco-Pipes and Pipemakers. Northampton Museums and Art Gallery, 1980. pp.4-5 [30]Comrie, p.192 [31] Comrie, p.223 [32] Hammond, p.13 [33] Comrie, p.193 [34] Comrie, p.200 [35] Wells, p.161 [36] Comrie, pp.219-21 [37] Comrie, p.201 Previous Next

< Back STAMFORD PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHAPEL (another religious location in the town) On Sunday last, two sermons were preached in the Primitive Methodist Chapel, New-gates, Stamford, by Mr. William Lewin, from Whissendine. Congregations were good, and collections very liberal. On the following day, a public tea meeting was held in the place of worship, at which 60 or 70 persons sat down. The subsequent meeting was addressed by Mr. Lewin (chairman), Mrs Cobley, the Rev. A. Beanland, and others. The Primitives have taken the above-mentioned place of worship, and intend to hold services every Sunday afternoon and evening. Source Stamford Mercury (Friday) November 7 th 1862 p4/c2. Notes. Although we have no precise location for this Chapel, however, it must have been on the east side of Newgates, as to the west we have the Stag and Pheasant Inn with its associated yard and outbuildings. The Primitive Methodists must not be confused with the Trinity Methodists on Barn Hill, who, in 1862, were worshipping in what is now the Barn Hill Church Meeting Room. The Primitive Methodists saw themselves as practising a purer form of Christianity and being closer to that of earlier Methodists. William Lewin, chair of the meeting, was a Coal Merchant, Brick and Tile Manufacturer, as well as a local Preacher living in Whissendine. In 1871, his daughter was an Infant School teacher in the Primitive Methodist Chapel School in Whissendine. The Rev. A. Beanland is Mr. Arthur Beanland who, in 1861, resided in Hinckley, Leicestershire. Both men were obviously travelling preachers, spreading the Word in Stamford. Chris Hunt February 2026 A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Carmen Nuptiale On the Marriage of Lord and Lady Burghley, September 7th 1875 Submitted By Chris Hunt Our Church bells loud are ringing, Our Streets with garlands gay, For Burghley’s Heir to Burghley His Bride’s brings home to-day; One more bright link is added To that ancestral chain, Which binds the heart of Stamford To Cecil’s old domain. Chorus. Then let this prayer of welcome Resound on every side: “God bless the Heir of Burghley,” “And bless his youthful Bride.” The Whichcote’s witching glances Have charmed her Soldier’s heart, And Mars, as erst, to Venus, Hath played the Captive’s part; But now, in turn, the Captives His Captor holds in thrall, And thrones her as his consort In Burghley’s lordly Hall. Chorus. May Heaven send brightest sunshine To gild their onward way, And smile upon their future, As it has smiled today; Should clouds o’ercast that sunshine With shadows from above, May they sustain each sorrow Strong in each other’s love. Chorus. In Bride and noble Bridegroom, May all delight to trace His Father’s kindly virtues, His Mother’s winning grace; So shall the House of Burghley Support its ancient fame, And pass to future ages Its old and honour’d name. Chorus. Then let the prayer of welcome Re-echo far and wide, “God bless the Heir of Burghley.” “And bless his youthful Bride.” A.R.W. (author unknown) Source An Undated Newspaper Cutting inserted in a book owned by Justin Simpson. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Barrel Ring & Opener BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Lowe, Son & Cobbold - Barrel Ring and Crown Cork Bottle Opener Although the firm of Lowe, Son and Cobbold was registered as a limited company in 1895 the Lowe family had run a successful Wine and Spirits business on the Broad Street site adjoining the Nags Head Passage since 1819. The brewery was in operation from the mid-1890s until the Second World War. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next