< Back A brief report into research carried out to establish the location of Bradcroft Hamlet, Stamford by Richard Asher Introduction At the request of Professor Alan Rogers, I undertook a review of various maps and plans and instigated inquiries to establish whether any plans existed which refer to, or mark the hamlet known as Bradcroft, which is believed to have been located, in Medieval times, somewhere west of Water Furlong, Stamford and east of the village of Tinwell. It is thought the hamlet may have alternative spellings of Breadcroft or Bredcroft. For convenience I shall refer to the hamlet as Bradcroft even though some of the evidence points to other spellings (see Research Carried Out below). This research has been purely related to maps and plans and does not seek to include reference to any other form of historical documentation that may refer to the hamlet. This report is a summary of my findings. Background Bradcroft is referred to in the book “ The Making of Stamford ”, where it is said to have 6 lay taxpayers in 1332. It is referred to as an ‘outlying village’ (to Stamford) ‘(in Rutland on the west)’ [1] . The description goes on to refer to the church of “St Mary Bynnewerk had houses in the suburban part of its parish, running into the Rutland hamlet of Bradcroft, ancient demesne of the crown, which was often treated as a suburb of Stamford, too small to boast a parish church of its own.” [2] St Mary Bynnewerk is believed to have been located within the Stamford Town walls on the street which is now known as Petergate. There is therefore an assumption that the hamlet was just within the Rutland County boundary. The current county boundary runs in a somewhat erratic manner close to the existing course of the river Welland to the south, following what may have been the previous course of the river. It then rises in roughly a straight line between the two fields west of the Water Furlong allotment gardens, to the south side of Tinwell Road until just before the Stamford by-pass (A1). If therefore the county boundary has not changed, and if Bradcroft was in Rutland, then it must have been to the west of this line, towards what is currently known as South View Business Park. However, it is possible that in medieval times the boundary of Rutland may have been much closer to the walled town of Stamford than it is today. Extent of research carried out My investigation has related purely to maps and plans I have been able to access. A list of these is attached at Appendix 1. I made enquiries regarding maps of the area to the following establishments: i) British Library ii) Stamford Town Hall Archives iii) Rutland County Museum iv) Oakham Library v) Leicestershire and Rutland County Archive, Oadby vi) Burghley Estate Office As a result of these enquiries, I examined a number of maps at Stamford Town Hall, Oakham library, the British Library and my own map collection. Leicestershire and Rutland Archive and Burghley Estate Office said they had no maps or plans of sufficient age to be of assistance. The earliest maps were those of John Speed (1612) and Joannes (Jean or John) Blaeu (1645). The Speed map has an inset of “Stanford” at a large scale but shows nothing to the west of the town walls except “Peter’s Gate” (1) and “Austyne friers” (2). On the county map the county boundary runs in almost a straight line to the west of Stanford to join up to the unnamed river to the north (The Gwash). Apart from the words “Weland flu” on the river, there are no markings on the map between Tynwell and Stanford either side of the county boundary. The Bleau map is very clear. It shows the county boundary also running almost vertical from the Welland (marked “Weeland fl.”) to the Gwash (unnamed), although slightly curved east towards the Welland. Tynwell is shown a significant distance to the west of the county boundary. There is no other settlement marked, except for “Stanford” which is delineated by a town wall, gate and spires. Thus, a substantial settlement. The Bowen map (1778) shows the county boundary more curving round between the Welland and Gwash, with a large symbol for Stamford which shows some structures topped by a strange two-pronged aerial structure. This symbol is within the triangle formed of the river Welland, the county boundary and the Gwash where it flows into the Welland. To the west of the county boundary there is a church symbol, with the word Tynwell. Just to the right-hand side of the symbol for Tinwell is a large capital letter “R”. There is no key on the copy of the map I have seen, so the significance of the “R” is not clear. No roads are shown on any of the above maps. The John Carey map (1801) shows considerably more detail than any of the previous maps. It includes the main roads and shows Stamford in a more detailed layout, with St Martins specifically labelled and the outline of Burghley Park shown and named. The map clearly shows the rather bulbous extent of the county boundary immediately north of the Welland, the old Roman road (although this is not named) and a small number of buildings (including a church) at Tinwell. There is some sort of ‘blob’ on the south side of the road to Tinwell from Stamford, just west of the Roman road and east of the county boundary. This does not look like the other symbols for a settlement, but it could be a small enclosure or simply where the colourist has spilled some ink! The Smith map (1804) is of very similar style and content to the Carey map (see above). The map of Stamford is more stylised and is truncated to the south. The “Welland River” is also only drawn half way between the county boundary and Stamford. As well as Tinwell being marked, Tinwell Toll Bar is shown, along with the letters “n” just inside the Rutland county boundary and “a” just outside it, both to the south of the road (Tinwell Road). There is no index to the map, so I assume that the explanation was in the commentary that accompanied the atlas. The untitled map dated 1814 from the British Library, is believed to be the initial survey by the Ordnance Survey. This is a detailed plan showing the field boundaries and details of each block of buildings within Stamford. Several other locations within Stamford are also marked (including St. Martins, St. Leonards, The Nuns and Hudd’s Mill). All roads are shown, but not named. There are buildings shown on either side of Tinwell Road to the east of the junction with Roman Bank and Water Furlong; a windmill on the corner of Roman Bank and Tinwell Road (on the west side). There are also two buildings or enclosures shown on the site of South View Farm. There is a large L-shaped field shown on the south west side of Tinwell Road, adjoining Water Furlong and stretching from Tinwell Road to the north channel of the river Welland, which has the county boundary running along the western edge. The north eastern corner (close to the junction of Water Furlong and Tinwell Road) appears to have some form of enclosure or copse. The Knipe Map of 1834 The Knipe map (1834) is a detailed survey of Stamford which extends to just beyond the Rutland county boundary on the west side of the map. This map shows the same field between the river (Welland), Tinwell Road (Uppingham Road on the map) and Water Furlong (unnamed on the map), as in the 1814 map. The larger scale of the Knipe map allows for more detail to be displayed. Again, there are buildings shown on both sides of the Uppingham Road east of the junction with Roman Bank and Water Furlong, but it also shows buildings on Water Furlong, along with what appear to be allotments on the east side of Water Furlong. There is also a notation on the map north of Uppingham Road, “Pewterer’s Hedges”. The field to the west of Water Furlong and east of the county boundary is shown with a number of different hatchings for different parts of the field. It is not clear what these different hatchings represent, although they may represent the direction of the furrows in an open field system. Part of the field is obscured by a panel listing the parishes in Stamford, but immediately above this panel are the words “Bread Croft”. This implies that this is the field name. The Stamford Enclosure Award map of 1874, a copy of which is held at Stamford Town Hall, shows the detail of the field. This includes a building being shown in the north-east corner of the field, adjacent to Tinwell Road and Water Furlong (no road names are marked on the map). The map also shows a public footpath across the field which remains to this day. The field exists, as shown on the previous map, but has a footpath running across the centre of the field from the east to west. The plan appears to consist of two distinct plans merged together, which excludes the lower part of the area and does not link to the area to the south. Also, the lower edge of the map is missing. However, the name “Breadcroft” appears on the land to the south of this field; south of the mill stream of the river Welland and north of the main channel of the river. This area is apparently demarcated as meadows, together with a small oval enclosure to the south of the mill stream. Research at Oakham Library also produced a book entitled “Maps of Rutland” compiled by M Goldmark and A R Traylen, published by Rutland History Society. This book contains a comprehensive list of maps produced of Rutland over the centuries, and reproduces black and white extracts from many of them. I have not had an opportunity to peruse all of these maps (see further research below). Knipe map detail showing Bread Croft just above the Parishes box Conclusions There are in my view four possible locations for the medieval hamlet of Bradcroft: a) Somewhere on what is now called Tinwell Road, to the east of Water Furlong, and west of Petergate, probably west of Rutland Terrace. b) Further to the west of a) above, between Tinwell Road and the river, in the vicinity of South View Farm Business Park, within the existing Rutland county boundary. c) To the south of the mill stream, in the meadows to the north of the main channel of the river Welland, west of Water Furlong. d) To the south and west of the junction of the road now known as Tinwell Road and Water Furlong, probably either side of the existing public footpath from Water Furlong to the South View Farm Business Park. I shall examine each of these possibilities in turn. a) This possible location is closest to the known walled medieval town of Stamford, and, in proximity to the Austin Friary, known to be just without the walls. This could then be regarded as part of the suburbs or extra mural area of the town, which would perhaps be suggested by the supposed link with St Mary’s Bynnewerk parish, and later All Saints. This area is approximately a mile from current the Rutland county boundary, but it is possible that the county boundary was much closer to the walled town in medieval times. The oldest map examined (1612) does not evidence this. Whilst the 19th Century maps indicate sporadic buildings in this area, there is nothing to suggest they are anything but the usual ribbon development, for quarrymen’s cottages and the like, typical of that period. None of the maps examined support any evidence for this location. b) South View Farm is located inside the present Rutland county boundary. However, there is no evidence that this is a location in occupation much earlier than the beginning of 19th Century [3] . There is no evidence in the maps examined that this was the location for the hamlet. c) South of the Mill Stream is the location of the word “Breadcroft” on the 1874 Enclosure map prepared by the Commissioners of Enclosure for the parishes of All Saints and St George, Stamford. Although this is within the then county boundary of Lincolnshire and is shown on the map to be part of the parish of All Saints, it is a primary candidate for the location. However, none of the earlier maps have identified any settlement in this location. In my view this is a field name and not necessarily indicative of the location of the settlement of Breadcroft, as the land is likely to have been too prone to flood and generally too marshy for permanent settlement. d) The area to the north of the mill stream, on the field and allotment gardens to the west of Water Furlong is in my view the most likely location for the medieval hamlet. This is in the area identified as “Bread Croft” on the Knipe map. Although this is the only map that identifies this location, and much of the field is obscured on Knipe’s map by the cartouche providing a list of parishes to Stamford, so that it is possible the name had to be moved up to accommodate the panel, nevertheless Knipe has proved to be a quite accurate map in other respects, and may be taken to be more accurate than the Enclosure map, which after all was primarily concerned with the open fields to the north of Stamford. Also, the existence of a public footpath across the centre of this field to this day may support this view, although it has to be said that there are also public footpaths crossing site c) above. The evidence on the maps examined is not wholly supported by the documentary evidence quoted above (see Background). However, it is possible, as suggested at a) above, that the county boundary may have been further east in medieval times, placing this site in Rutland too. Further studies Further research is required to establish further evidence for the proposed location, including a review of all documents available relating to the Hamlet of Breadcroft (as the only two maps refer to it as that, admittedly one as “Bread Croft” and the other as “Breadcroft”). Most of these documents are likely to be of a medieval nature and require an expert in medieval documents to review them. In addition, I am not aware of the results of investigation of the Lincolnshire County Archives, or the Rutland and Lincolnshire Victorian County Histories, both of which may provide further information. The surface finds from a field-walk I carried out along the public footpath running across site d) need to be examined by a qualified archaeologist to ascertain if they provide any further evidence. A review should also be carried out of any further archaeological evidence which has been reported within the locations suggested, including the reports of the excavation of a “Roman Villa” in the vicinity of South View Farm in 19th Century. Obtain a copy of the Large English Atlas (Bowen) and seek an explanation of the letter “R”. Likewise, obtain a copy of New Atlas (Smith) and seek an explanation for the letters “n” and “a”. A review of the book “Maps of Rutland” compiled by M Goldmark and A R Traylen, and if possible, seek to inspect original maps, which have not been included in this research, listed in the book. Richard Asher March 2019 APPENDIX 1 Table of Maps included in review Publisher/Cartographer Description Date John Speed The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain - Rutlandshire 1612 Joannes Blaeu Theatrum Orbis Terrarum - Rutland 1645 Emmanuel Bowen Large English Atlas - Rutland 1778 John Carey New and Correct English Atlas - Rutland 1801 Charles Smith New English Atlas - Rutland 1804 Mr. Boyce Original Ordnance Survey – drawn survey map sheet 228 1814 James A Knipe Plan of Stamford Surveyed 1833 (published 1834) - Ordnance Survey First Edition (reprint) 1840 (not known) Stamford Enclosure Map 1874 [1] The Making of Stamford Leicester University Press page 49. [2] Ibid page 50. [3] Although it is believed that remains of Roman structures were found near here in the 19th Century. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A walk around Stamford town centre post boxes By Trish Auciello For a small town, Stamford has a wide range of postboxes covering six monarchs, and examples of all of these can be found in and around the town centre, covering the three main types of post box: - pillar: free standing, usually cylindrical - wall: rectangular, in the wall of a building or sometimes with its own brick surround - lamp: a smaller rectangular box, either attached to a lamp post or on its own supporting pole This is a self-guided walk to visit the postboxes, it will take about 60-75 minutes, although this can be extended to include shopping or a coffee somewhere along the way. It is circular so it can be started at any convenient point. Note: the route involves walking alongside and crossing busy roads, and you will need to take responsibility for your own safety at all times. We start at the railway station, obviously handy for those arriving by train, but also close to the Cattle Market car park. Here you will find a Victoria wall box on platform 1. Most postboxes have the cypher of the reigning monarch when they were installed and this one has VR, Victoria Regina, who reigned from 1837 to 1901. The station was opened in 1848, and is now a Grade II* listed building and wall boxes were first introduced in 1857. From the station, walk along Station Road where you can see a George V pillar box across the road junction on the corner of High Street Saint Martin’s and Water Street. Cross the busy road with care for a closer look. George V reigned from 1910 to 1936 and his cypher is GR. Although you might expect his cypher to show GVR in some form as the fifth King George, he took the view that he was the first George with a postbox so GR was quite sufficient. This box is the only GR on our walk. Walk along Water Street right to the end to see an Elizabeth II lamp box , outside the old Stamford East station, now converted to two houses. Elizabeth II reigned from 1952 to 2022, and her cypher is EIIR. This is the closest lamp box to the town centre and the only one on our walk. Retrace your steps, cross the Albert Bridge, and walk up Albert Road. Turn right at the top onto Wharf Road, and look across to see an Elizabeth II wall box, opposite the Wharf Road car park entrance, on the wall of what used to be the Co-operative dairy, now residential. This may have been a Victorian box that has been replaced in recent years. Continue up Wharf Road and turn right at the end into Saint Leonard’s Street. Walk along here, past the mini roundabout, onto Priory Road, to see an Edward VII wall box on the corner of Cherry Holt Road. Edward VII reigned from 1901 to 1910, his cypher was EVIIR in a very ornate script. There are only two EVIIR post boxes, both wall, in Stamford. Cross Priory Road, and turn left into Pinfold Lane. At the top, at the roundabout, turn right to cross Uffington Road, then left in front of the early 14 th century Friary gate. The associated plaque mentions Whitefriars and over the years there has been much interchangeability of names between White and Grey Friaries. Recent studies suggest that this is the gate for Greyfriars, in which case you are standing on the spot where Elizabeth I passed through the gate, and who stayed in the friary building inside, as a guest of Lord Burghley. Turn right to walk down Ryhall Road to see Britain’s third rarest type of post box, an Edward VIII pillar box , outside what was a sub post office, now a barber’s shop. Edward VIII only reigned from January to December 1936 and his cypher is EVIIIR. There were about 271 post boxes installed during his short reign, and only about 130 still exist with his cypher, although others may have had the doors changed to a later monarch. I say third rarest because, in addition to the pillar boxes, there are only one or two wall boxes in existence, including one in Bawdsey in Suffolk. Currently, the second rarest post box is Charles III, although this will change as more are installed. Perhaps we’ll see a CIIIR in Stamford one day. Retrace your steps slightly to cross Ryhall Road, and turn left along Ryhall Road. Stay right at the mini roundabout onto Saint Paul’s Street, crossing the end of East Street, to continue towards the town centre. Our second Edward VII wall box is on the right outside Stamford School. Continue along Saint Paul’s Street, crossing Star Lane, into the High Street to the Elizabeth II pillar box outside Stamford Library. From here, you can either go up the narrow lane to the left of the library, Goldsmith’s Lane, usually known as the library passage, and turn left at the top into Broad Street, or turn right further down the High Street into Ironmonger Street which will also lead you to Broad Street. Cross Broad Street and turn left to the Elizabeth II pillar box outside Browne’s Hospital. Browne’s Hospital is an almshouse, and house of prayer, originally built in 1475, by William Browne, a wealthy wool merchant. Visit their website for more information, including opening times. The almshouses at the rear of the building are still in use today. Cross Broad Street again and pause at the top of Ironmonger Street to see a “ ghost box” where a wall box used to be. It’s possible this box was relocated to Kesteven Road, where there’s a GR (1910-1936) wall box in a 1950s housing estate. Continue down Ironmonger Street, turn right into the High Street, and turn left into Cheyne Lane, which is between Fairfax & Favor and the Cornish Bakery. At the bottom, turn right onto Saint Mary’s Street and walk a short distance to the only Victoria pillar box in town. From here, you can look down Saint Mary’s Hill to see the Town Hall on the left and the town bridge over the River Welland at the bottom of the hill. You can either continue along Saint Mary’s Street and follow the road round to the right to walk up Saint John’s Street into Red Lion Square, but, as the road here is busy and the pavement very narrow, you might prefer to return to the High Street and turn left to walk down to the square. At the end of the High Street, cross into Red Lion Square, and head diagonally right, past Nelson’s Butchers to the corner with All Saints’ Place, turn left and you will find two wall boxes at the post office . These don’t have a cypher, but a stone carving above them shows the cypher of GVIR and date of 1937. Continue into All Saints’ Street, where a visit can be made to Harrison & Dunn , a traditional ironmonger’s shop, otherwise turn left into Mallory Lane and down into Sheep Market. Cross the road and walk down Castle Dyke to the path across the meadows back to Station Road to complete our circuit. If you have enjoyed looking for Stamford’s town centre boxes, and want to see more, there are 38 in total in the town itself - happy hunting! Trish Auciello ©️August 2025 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back William Luff By Karen Smith My husband’s first ancestor to come to Australia was William Luff (1795-1852), a convict from Stamford, Lincolnshire. This paper outlines William’s life and seeks to understand the meaning that William gave to his convict experience. At first glance, this is difficult as there are no surviving oral, written or pictorial accounts from William himself. The want of his ‘voice’ therefore necessitates an outside-in approach, which is accomplished through online records. These records enable informed assumptions about how William’s convict experience impacted his life. William was baptised in 1795 at St John’s (Church of England), Stamford, Lincolnshire. He was the son of Thomas Luff, soldier, and Ann. [1] It is likely that Thomas Luff served in the British Army during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the first few decades of the nineteenth century, standards of living in the rural areas of England had fallen. When harvests were bad, farm workers and small tenants were the first to suffer. This caused a migration towards towns where work was easier to be found. Then, following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was in considerable turmoil with returned soldiers and others involved in war production suddenly finding themselves out of employment and in competition for jobs. It was into this turmoil that twenty-year-old William Luff, labourer, found himself. On the night of Thursday 16 November 1815, the White Hart Inn at Ketton, Rutland, some three miles south west of Stamford, was subject to burglary. The objects stolen included “a considerable sum of money” and two silver watches. [2] Suspicion quickly fell on William Luff and Joseph Briggs as they had been seen in the vicinity. Image of the White Hart Inn, taken in 2009 Image of the White Hart Inn, taken in 2009, from: White Hart, Ketton ( closedpubs.co.uk ) William was apprehended by the Stamford town sergeant on 13 January 1816. He went through two trials before his case went before the grand jury at the Rutland Assizes, held at Oakham Castle, on 7 March 1817. The delay was due to the hope that Briggs would be apprehended, as it was thought he was the instigator, but he evaded capture. [3] At trial, the sergeant testified that William had freely confessed to the crime without coercion, to which William interrupted, “Yes he did [coerce me]: he said I should be hung if I did not ‘peach”. [4] William’s confession was read out: Briggs identified the White Horse as a good mark, and said he would commit the burglary if William would keep watch. After listening to evidence, the jury found William guilty, and Judge the Hon. Baron Richards passed the sentence of death, saying that only God’s grace could save him from the gallows with the reprieve of transportation, upon which William interjected with, “I hope not, my Lord, I would sooner be hanged.” It was subsequently reported, “Nothing so thoroughly hardened and wicked as this man’s behaviour in Court is remembered before in Rutland.” [5] God’s grace must have shone down, because William’s sentence was commuted to seven years transportation to New South Wales (NSW). [6] On the prison coach’s journey from Rutland to Portsmouth, it stopped at Stamford, where two of his brothers and their wives visited William and lamented his fate. [7] On 20 May 1817, at Portsmouth, William was placed on the prison hulk, Leviathan, a 74-gun ship used at the Battle of Trafalgar. [8] The hulk’s register describes William as 5ft 11¼ inches tall, with black hair and grey eyes. [9] Whilst on the hulk, William and his fellow inmates were required to work at Portsmouth and Langston harbours. [10] William was one of 180 convicts transported to Australia on the Ocean , under Master Samuel Remmington. [11] The ship was also carrying 12 bales of wool, 3 tons of coal and 4 head of horned cattle, an indication of the paucity of industry in Australia at the time. [12] The ship’s surgeon and superintendent was George Fairford, whose journal tells us that the ship departed England on 24 June 1817 and arrived at Sydney on 16 January 1818. On the journey the ship stopped at St Helena, where one of the convicts, James Barnes, aged 21 years, was taken off the ship after an episode of “high delirium” during which he confessed to murdering a woman in Scotland two years prior. [13] William Luff was not amongst the 30 convicts and soldiers who received medical treatment on board ship. It should also be noted that there was no loss of life on the journey, a result of the Redfern report, which led, in 1815, to the Naval Transport Board assigning a qualified naval surgeon to accompany every convict ship arriving in Australia. [14] On the day of the Ocean’s arrival at Sydney Cove, John Thomas Campbell, Governor Lachlan Macquarie’s then Secretary, wrote to Reverend Samuel Marsden JP, Parramatta, listing convicts for distribution. Campbell specified eight convicts be assigned to his 1,500-acre Bringelly property, Shancomore , including William Luff. [15] It is likely Campbell selected William and his cohort on the basis of their good health and productive potential. It has been argued elsewhere that nepotism in the assignment period of convict history (1788-1839) led to inconsistencies in the application of penal policy and practice. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that a convict’s progress from primary incarceration, transportation, assignment, and reintegration through ticket of leave and tickets of freedom largely depended on their behaviour, reformative goals and the value placed upon their skills. [16] At the time of William’s arrival, the colonial population of NSW was around 13,000, made up of government and military officials, soldiers, ex-convicts and their families, and a few free settlers. The colonial population regularly came in contact with Aboriginal people visiting and trading with settlers. Shancomore is in Dhurug country, and in May 1814 it was reported that around 400 Aboriginal people attacked the property, spearing the overseer in the shoulder, killing several pigs, and stealing grain and other provisions. [17] In July 1815 James Daley’s 40-acre Bringelly property was approached by a number of Aboriginal people. James was away at the time, and his wife, Maria, shot at them as a deterrent, then ran in terror from the house leaving behind two children and her three-day old infant. When she returned the two children had been murdered, but the infant was unharmed. It was thought this was payback for two Aboriginal children shot two months earlier. [18] Shancomore was not an easy assignment for convicts. [19] Another letter from Campbell to Robert Lowe Esq JP, Bringelly, also dated 16 January 1818, sought to have eight convicts at Shancomore removed as they were found to possess “bad conduct”. [20] Earlier, in February 1816, convict Andrew Coultra drowned in the Nepean while escaping, and in January 1818, almost as Willian Luff commenced work on the property, another convict, James Pestill, escaped by stealing Campbell’s horse and other property. [21] Regrettably, by November 1819, William had run afoul of Campbell, and was working at Sydney’s Brickfields. [22] A gang of eight men was expected to make 3,000 bricks a day at this site. [23] William would have been there for weeks or months depending on the severity of his offence, and would have been wearing ‘party dress’ as a public mark of disgrace. [24] 1820 - Day in the life of a convict Image from: 1820 - Day in the life of a convict ( mhnsw.au ) William was back with Campbell in 1820, and in 1821 was assigned to Sir John Wylde, Judge Advocate, who owned Cecil Hills, Cabramatta. [25] It is likely William’s work at both properties involved clearing land, fencing, building, tending stock, and ploughing. [26] Every Sunday he would have been required to attend church. There are no records of William ever committing another offence either as a convict or after his emancipation on 6 October 1825. His Ticket of Freedom record shows that William’s convict experience was written on his body: he was an inch shorter, had greying hair, and ruddy complexion. [27] In 1828, William was working as overseer for George Wentworth, son of D’Arcy Wentworth, at Greendale near Bringelly. [28] In 1835 the property was described as 7,000 acres, 35 miles from Sydney, and, “On the Farm is an excellent Cottage, containing eight apartments, with detached Kitchen, Stabling, and commodious Sheds. The whole is enclosed with a three-rail fence, and divided into eight Paddocks…” [29] It is likely that William, as overseer, was responsible for the management of convicts in this role. William next appears in the records in 1834, when he was a landholder for free inhabitants of the Illawarra (Tharawal country) who signed a petition to the Governor of NSW, Major-General Sir Richard Bourke requesting the construction of a road to the district. [30] There is a dearth of information about William from 1834 to 4 September 1837, when he married colony-born Catholic, Catherine Devlyn (1824-1895), at St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney. [31] Catherine was 13 years old, the age of consent for women being 12 years, and for men, 14. [32] We can only speculate why theirs was a Catholic marriage. Marriages between those of the Church of England faith and Roman Catholics were recognised by legislation passed in 1834. [33] Perhaps the Reverend Samuel Marsden’s ‘flogging parson’ reputation diminished William’s Church of England allegiance, or perhaps it was a condition set by Catherine’s parents. [34] By October 1838 William and Catherine had made their way from Sydney to Tumut (in Ngarigo Wiradjuri country). William was working for John Archer Broughton (1818-1878), who owned a property named Mundongbeggey , which was located some four and half miles east of Tumut. [35] We know this because William placed a newspaper notice advertising the stud services of his three-year-old horse, Jupiter, who won the hurdles at the Yass races, earning William £20. Moreover, Jupiter was related to Hector, once the property of the Duke of Wellington. [36] This advertisement allows us not only to establish William’s location at a specific date, but also the circles he was moving in and his personal interests and abilities. It shows us that William was coming up in the world. William and Catherine commenced having a family in 1839, with Thomas born that year, Ann in 1841, and Catherine in 1844. [37] While these births were unregistered, five subsequent births were registered at a Catholic church in the Yass mission, possibly St Augustine’s Church, Yass, which was built between 1838-1844. [38] St Augustine's Catholic Church Image of St Augustine’s Catholic Church (foreground) from: Lovat-Chapel-Memorial-Booklet.pdf ( staug-yass.org.au ) By 1841 the family was living in a wooden home at Gobarralong, alongside the mighty Murrumbidgee River, some 30 miles north of Tumut (Ngarigo Ngunawal country). [39] Between March 1840 and September 1845, William applied for seven licenses to depasture stock at their property, Courah , Gobarralong. [40] At the time the property was a modest 1,280 acres, with grazing capability of 280 cattle and 17 horses. [41] Image of "Courah", Gobarralong, taken by author 2023 In June 1849, William sponsored the immigration of his niece, Mary Ann True (nee Luff) and her husband Samuel to Australia on the ship, John Bright . Mary Ann was the daughter of William’s older brother George Luff (1793-1862). Mary Ann, dressmaker, was aged 24 years, and Samuel, stone mason, 34. The ship’s passenger list says she has an uncle, William Lough [sic], on the Murrumbidgee. [42] After their arrival in Australia, the Trues made their way to Gundagai, no doubt stopping at Gobarralong on the way. One of Mary Ann and Samuel’s descendants shared the following: “Story comes from Alice Jones (True) about her grandparents travelling from Sydney to Gundagai by bullock wagon in 1849. They came upon some Aboriginals roasting an animal by the side of the track, probably taken from a settler’s herd of cattle. Mary True became quite frightened and upset as she was convinced the Aboriginals were cannibals and they were cooking humans! She wanted to turn around and immediately return to England! The journey from Sydney to Gundagai in those days was quite perilous and difficult with the journey taking up to three months. The road was nothing more than a rough bush track made by the wheels of the wagons travelling through the never-ending scrub.” [43] Mary Ann’s arrival in Australia shows that William was in touch with his Lincolnshire family: he managed to retain close family bonds despite transportation. Sadly, however, William Luff’s story ends in tragedy. William was in Gundagai on the night of 25 June 1852, when the town was washed away by the flooded Murrumbidgee and at least 78 people lost their lives. William happened to be staying overnight at The Rose Inn when the flood occurred. He and twenty-seven others climbed on the roof hoping to escape the water, but to no avail: “William Luff, a squatter from Gobarralong…was amongst those drowned. James Gormley said that Luff was a strong man in the prime of life . He was an ex-convict from Stamford, Lincolnshire, who had arrived in the colony on board the Ocean in 1817 [sic].” [44] William Luff was only one of 171,000 convicts transported from England and Ireland to Australia. We don’t have access to William’s reflections on his experience. However, we can see that following his sentence he lived a law-abiding life. In addition, by relocating from Sydney to Gobarralong he was able to shed the convict and emerge the squatter, racehorse owner, uncle of an assisted immigrant. His legacy remains in Gobarralong, where Luffs work, worship, and prosper to this day. Bibliography Allen, Matthew, ‘The Myth of the Flogging Parson: Samuel Marsden and Severity of Punishment in the Age of Reform,’ Australian Historical Studies , 48, 2017, pp. 486-501. Allport, Gordon W., ‘The Nature of Prejudice,’ 1979, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 97F5FE75CF9A120E7DC108EB1B0FF5EC.holocaust-the-nature-of-prejudice.doc ( live.com ) . Ancestry.com , 1841 New South Wales, Australia, Census. Ancestry.com , England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. Ancestry.com , Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896. Ancestry.com , New South Wales, Australia, Certificates of Freedom, 1810-1814, 1827-1867. Ancestry.com , New South Wales, Australia, Returns of the Colony, 1822-1857. Ancestry Library Edition, Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868. Ancestry Library Edition, England and Wales Criminal Registers, 1791-1892. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Australia, Colonial Secretary’s Papers, 1788-1856. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Australia, Convict Intents, 1788-1842. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Australia, Settler and Convict Lists, 1787-1834. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825 Ancestry Library Edition, UK Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849. Ancestry Library Edition, UK, Royal Navy Medical Journals, 1817-1856. Australian National University, ‘Sir John Wylde ,’ Australian Dictionary of Biography website, n. d., Biography - Sir John Wylde - Australian Dictionary of Biography ( anu.edu.au ) . Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, ‘The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia,’ 1996. British Broadcasting Commission, ‘Crime and Punishment In Industrial Britain, c. 1750- c. 1900,’ British Broadcasting Commission website, n.d., Crime and criminals - impact of industrialisation - Crime and punishment in Industrial Britain, c.1750-c.1900 - OCR B - GCSE History Revision - OCR B - BBC Bitesize . Cumpston, J. S., Shipping Arrivals & Departures, Sydney 1788-1825 , Roebuck Society Publication No. 22, 1977, Canberra. Cunneen, Matthew & Malcolm Allbrook, ‘Understanding convict lives: A historiographical and methodological reassessment,’ Australian Journal of Biography and History , No. 7, 2023, ANU Press, Canberra, 1-21. Dodd, Ian, ‘Marriage Law in Colonial New South Wales: C. H. Currey Revisited,’ Journal of Colonial Australian History , Vol. 20, 2018, 1-23. Drakard’s Stamford News. Foxall, Katherine, ‘From Convicts to Colonists: The Health of Prisoners and the Voyage to Australia, 1823-53,’ The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History , 2011, 39:1, 1-19. French, Reverend J. D., Tumut and District Historical Society, Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley , 1965, Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley - J. D. French - Google Books . Gibbs, Martin, Tuffin, Richard, Roe, David, ‘An Historical Archaeology of Labor in Convict Australia: A Framework for Engagement,’ Historical Archaeology , 2023, 57: 1008-1030. Maher, Rev. Brian, Memories of Yass Mission St Augustine’s Parish, Yass, N. S. W. Sesquicentenary 1838-1988 , St Augustine’s Parish Sesquicentenary Committee, Yass, 1988. Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Convict Sydney Sandstone Bricks,’ n. d., Sandstock Bricks ( mhnsw.au ) . Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Depasturing Licenses Index 1837-1851,’ n. d., Depasturing licenses index 1837-1851 ( mhnsw.au ) . Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Treatment of convicts by private employers,’ n. d., Convict assignment records ( mhnsw.au ) . New South Wales Government, An Act to Remove Doubts as to the Validity of Certain Marriages Had and Solemnized within the Colony of New South Wales and to Regulate the Registration of Certain Marriages Baptisms and Burials , 4th July, 1834, act-1834-7a ( nsw.gov.au ) . New South Wales Government Gazette. NSW Land Registry Services, Historical Parish Maps, Historical Land Records Viewer, NSW Land Registry Services | HLRV ( nswlrs.com.au ) . Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 2012, ‘Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012’. Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser . Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, New South Wales. Stamford Mercury. State Library New South Wales, ‘The Convict Experience,’ State Library of New South Wales website, n.d., The convict experience | State Library of New South Wales ( nsw.gov.au ) . The Australian. The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser. The Sydney Monitor. The Sydney Morning Herald. Watson, Frederick, Chapman, Peter & Australia Parliament Library Committee, 1914, Historical records of Australia, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney Historical records of Australia ( nla.gov.au ) Wikipedia, ‘List of British Prison Hulks,’ Wikipedia website, 2024, List of British prison hulks - Wikipedia . [1] Baptism record for William Luff, England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975, FHL Film No. 1450474, Reference ID: -2:3Q8FMVV, Ancestry.com , accessed 2 June 2024. Keith Hansell (Stamford and District Local History Society) to Karen Smith [email], 30 May 2024 original held by author. [2] “BURGLARY,” Drakard’s Stamford News , Friday 17 November 1815, p. 3. [3] “Rutland Assizes,” Stamford Mercury , Friday 14 March 1817, p. 4. [4] As above. [5] William Luff, England and Wales Criminal Registers, 1791-1892, England, Rutland, 1817, Accessed online at Ancestry Library Edition, 4 June 2024. [6] Hulk record for William Luff, Leviathan Register 1801-1836, UK Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849, p. 8, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 15 May 2024. [7] ‘Domestic News,’ Drakard’s Stamford News , Friday 23 May 1817, p. 3, The British Newspaper Archive, accessed 15 May 2024. [8] Record of the Leviathan , Wikipedia, ‘List of British Prison Hulks,’ Wikipedia website, 2024, List of British prison hulks - Wikipedia , accessed 14 June 2024. [9] Record for William Luff, p. 8, Leviathan Register 1801-1836, UK Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849, Ancestry Library Edition. [10] The Navy,” Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, Monday 3 February 1817, p. 2. The British Newspaper Archive, Brass Ornaments In The Roman Style. No Buttons Ar e Seen On The New Jacket, The Front Being Secured By Hook* | Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser | Monday 03 February 1817 | British Newspaper Archive [11] Record of transportation for William Luff, Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868, 1810-1817, record of convicts aboard the ship, Ocean , p. 178, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed online 7 May 2024. Frederick Watson, Frederick & Peter Chapman, Australia Parliament Library Committee, 1914, Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816 - December 1818), p. 749, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816 - December 1818) ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 2 June 2024. [12] J. S. Cumpston, Shipping Arrivals & Departures, Sydney 1788-1825 , Roebuck Society Publication No. 22, 1977, Canberra. [13] Museum of History New South Wales, “The convict impact on Aboriginal people: Impacts of the convict system on Aboriginal Country and communities,” accessed online 7 June 2024: The convict impact on Aboriginal people ( mhnsw.au ) [14] Katherine Foxall, “From Convicts to Colonists: The Health of Prisoners and the Voyage to Australia, 1823-53,” p. 3, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History , 39:1, 1-19 (2011). [15] Letter concerning assignment of William Luff, New South Wales, Australia, Colonial Secretary’s Papers, 1788-1856, Copies of Letters Sent Within the Colony, 1814-1827, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 15 May 2024. Map of the Parish of Bringelly, County of Cumberland, sheet reference 1, undated, Historical Parish Maps, NSW Land Registry Services, Historical Land Records Viewer, NSW Land Registry Services | HLRV ( nswlrs.com.au ) , accessed 6 June 2024. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia , 1996. [16] Martin Gibbs, Richard Tuffin and David Roe, “An Historical Archaeology of Labor in Convict Australia: A Framework of engagement,” Historical Archaeology , 2023, 57: 1108-1030, p. 1012. [17] The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia, 1996 ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 7 May 1814, p. 2, Sydney: accessed online at: 07 May 1814 - Sydney. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 1 Sep 1821, p. 2, Classified Advertising, accessed online at: 01 Sep 1821 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [18] Stephen Gapps, The Sydney Wars: Conflict in the Early Colony, 1788-1817 , (2014), New South Publishing, p. 127, accessed online 7 June 2024: ProQuest Ebook Central - Book Details ( utas.edu.au ) [19] State Library New South Wales, ‘The Convict Experience,’ State Library of New South Wales website, n.d., The convict experience | State Library of New South Wales ( nsw.gov.au ) , accessed 13 June 2024. [20] New South Wales, Australia, Colonial Secretary’s Papers, 1788-1856, Copies of Letters Sent Within The Colony, 1814-1827, p. 1272, accessed online at Ancestry Library Edition, 6 June 2024. [21] The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 3 Feb 1816, p. 2, Sydney, accessed online 6 June 2024: 03 Feb 1816 - Sydney. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 28 Sep 1816, p. 2, SYDNEY, accessed online 6 June 2024: 28 Sep 1816 - SYDNEY. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 10 Jan 1818, p. 1, Classified Advertising, accessed online 6 June 2024: 10 Jan 1818 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [22] 1819 population muster record for Will Luff, New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825, Population Muster, 1819, p. 86, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 23 May 2024. [23] Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Convict Sydney Sandstone Bricks,’ Museums of New South Wales website, Sandstock Bricks ( mhnsw.au ) , accessed 13 June 2024. [24] Frederick Watson, Frederick & Peter Chapman, Australia Parliament Library Committee, 1914, Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816-December 1818), p. 518, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816 - December 1818) ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 13 June 2024. [25] Record for William Luff in 1820, New South Wales, Australia, Settler and Convict Lists, 1787-1834, New South Wales, Male K-Y, 1820, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 14 June 2024. Record for William Luff in 1821, New South Wales, Australia, Settler and Convict Lists, 1787-1834, New South Wales, Male K-Y, 1821, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 4 June 2024. Australian National University, Australian Dictionary of Biography , Sir John Wylde , accessed Biography - Sir John Wylde - Australian Dictionary of Biography ( anu.edu.au ) , 4 June 2024. Parish of Cabramatta, County Cumberland, Parish Cabramatta, Sheet Reference 1, Historical Parish Maps, New South Wales Land Registry Services, accessed 4 June 2024. [26] ‘Classified Advertising,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 4 Sep 1813, p. 1, 04 Sep 1813 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 6 June 2024. ‘Classified Advertising,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 19 Sep 1814, p. 1, 19 Feb 1814 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 6 June 2024. ‘Classified Advertising,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 1 Sep 1821, p. 2, 01 Sep 1821 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 11 June 2024. Crops and stock of John Thomas Campbell Esq., New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825, New South Wales Land and Stock, 1819, p. 23, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 13 June 2024. Stock of John Wylde Esq., New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825, New South Wales Land and Stock, 1819, p. 88, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 13 June 2024. [27] Certificate of Freedom for William Luff, Number 43/4395, New South Wales, Australia, Certificates of Freedom, 1810-1814, 1827-1867, Ancestry.com , accessed 1 May 2024. [28] ‘Family Notices,’ The Sydney Monitor , Sat 22 Sep 1832, p. 3, 22 Sep 1832 - Family Notices - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) accessed online 30 May 2024. [29] The Sydney Herald, Thu 7 Mar 1833, p. 3 “Advertising”: accessed online 27 May 2024: 07 Mar 1833 - Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [30] The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, Thu 1 May 1834, p.2, accessed online 7 June 2024: p2 - 01 May 1834 - The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 - 1842) - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [31] Marriage certificate for William Luff and Catherine Devlyn, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 641/1837 V1837641 128. [32] Birth register entry for Catherine Develyn [sic], Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 519/1824 V1824519 125. Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 , Chapter 2: History of Marriage Laws in Australia, section 2.6, https___aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_spla_bill marriage_report_chapter2.pdf , accessed 8 June 2024. [33] New South Wales Government, An Act to Remove Doubts as to the Validity of Certain Marriages Had and Solemnized within the Colony of New South Wales and to Regulate the Registration of Certain Marriages Baptisms and Burials , 4th July, 1834, act-1834-7a ( nsw.gov.au ) , accessed 12 June 2024. [34] Matthew Allen, ‘The Myth of the Flogging Parson: Samuel Marsden and Severity of Punishment in the Age of Reform,’ Australian Historical Studies , 48, 2017, p. 491. [35] Reverend J. D. French, “Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley,” (1965), p.8, accessed online 25 May 2024: Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley - J. D. French - Google Books . Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia, 1996. [36] ‘Advertising,’ The Australian , Thur 13 Dec 1838, p. 4, p4 - 13 Dec 1838 - The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 - 1848) - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 25 May 2024. ‘Yass,’ The Australian , Sat 27 Oct 1838, p. 4, 27 Oct 1838 - YASS. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 8 June 2024. [36] ‘Magistrate for the Ensuing Week, John Piper, Esquire,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Thu 1 Jan 1824, p. 2, 01 Jan 1824 - MAGISTRATE FOR THE ENSUING WEEK, JOHN PIPER, ESQUIRE. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 20 May 2024. [37] Unregistered births: Thomas in 1839, Ann in 1841, and Catherine in 1844. [38] Birth register entry for Alice Luff, born 1845, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, 1887/1845 V18451887 62. Birth register entry for Sarah Luff, born 1846, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, 1891/1846 V18461891 63. Birth register entry for James Luff, born 1848, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 1743/1848 V18481743 65. Birth register entry for William Luff, born 1850, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 415/1850 V1850415 67. Birth register entry for Jane Luff, born 1851, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, 2057/1851 V18512057 68. Rev. Brian Maher, Memories of Yass Mission St Augustine’s Parish, Yass, N. S. W. Sesquicentenary 1838-1988 , St Augustine’s Parish Sesquicentenary Committee, Yass, 1988, p. 18-23. [39] Census record for William Luff, 1841 New South Wales, Australia, Census, Abstracts, Murrumbidgee, p. 4, Ancestry.com.au , accessed 3 June 2024. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia , 1996. [40] Depasturing licenses for William Luff, Murrumbidgee District, Depasturing Licenses Index 1837-1851 , Museums of History NSW, Depasturing licenses index 1837-1851 ( mhnsw.au ) , accessed 10 June 2024. [41] Description of the holding capacity of Courah, New South Wales Government Gazette , Sat 16 Feb 1850 [Issue No. 22 (SUPPLEMENT)], p. 263, 16 Feb 1850 - SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF CLAIMS TO LEASES OF CROWN LANDS BEYOND THE SETTLED DISTRICTS. - Trove , accessed 15 May 2024: [42] Assisted immigrant passenger list for Mary Ann and Samuel True, New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896, 1849, February, John Bright, p. 2, accessed at Ancesty.com 1 June 2024: Ancestry.com.au - New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896 [43] Marcia McIntyre, shared on Ancestry.com , 6 April 2012. [44] Cliff Butcher, Gundagai: A Track Winding Back , published by A. C. Butcher (2002). By Karen Smith 59 Market Street Boorowa, New South Wales, 2586 Australia Email: karenjanesmith@gmail.com A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back Ketton Gas and Coke Company (limited). Chris Hunt 2021 Today, unless you live in a very rural village, you take a gas supply as the norm. Of course, it has not always been the case. In September 1965 forty-odd miles off the Lincolnshire coast Natural Gas was discovered and so began a speedy decline and demise of the Coal Gas industry, which was colloquially called Town Gas. The production was of course not dependant on the size of the settlement, but more on the ease of obtaining cheap coal balanced by customer demand, or should that be a population that could afford the cost of the product. It was not until the first decade of the 19th century that the technology for the safe production and distribution of gas was available. This led to the world’s first gas company in 1812, the London and Westminster Gas Light and Coke Company. Initially outside of Britain’s coalfields the only places where cheap coal was available, were ports, riverside sites and towns supplied by canals. A major factor was that the use of gas for street lighting was so much cheaper than the use of oil lamps or candles. In Stamford’s case it was not until June 1823 that Royal assent was given for a Company for lighting the streets of the town which were first lit in March 1825. Locally to Stamford there were gas works at Easton on the Hill, King’s Cliffe and Ketton. Cheap coal only being available with the coming of the railways to these villages. The Ketton Gas and Coke Company (Limited) was incorporated in 1862. The Company was capitalised at £1,250 made up of 250 £5.00 shares. In November 1862, it was reported in the Stamford Mercury that a few shares were still available from the Company Solicitor, a Mr. John Dabbs of Stamford, and it further stated that ‘there is reason to believe that an ample Dividend of a permanent character will be realised’. The chosen site close to Ketton Railway station had been purchased and a contract had been entered into with Mr. George Bower of St Neot’s to provide the engineering equipment. The Directors of the Company had plans and specification drawn up for the building work which were made available between November 7th and 14th 1862 The tenders to be in the hands of the Secretary at the Office in Stamford by 1.00pm on November 15th or by 6.00pm on the same day at the White Hart Inn, at Ketton. Notice was given that the Directors would be meeting at the Inn on the same day to consider the Tenders and that those Tendering were invited to attend. Mr. Bower had also entered a Tender for the building work as on November 21st 1862 the Company announced that his Tender had been accepted, that the work would commence immediately with completion in ‘about two months’. George Bower, 1826-1911, was an industrialist and developer of gas appliances, whose products were sold at home and abroad from his iron foundry in St Neots. By 1880 he had also provided Gas Work equipment locally to gas works at Easton on the Hill and Kings Cliffe, and locally to the Marquis of Exeter at Burghley House, the Great Northern Railway at Essendine, Apethorpe Hall and Shillingthorpe Hall. The Ketton Gas and Coke Company must have initially been seen as a successful venture for in June 1865 five of the £5.00 shares were sold at auction by Mr. William Langley at the Assembly Rooms in Stamford for £6 2s 6d per share (a profit of 22.5% over three years). This success was short lived as at auction held by Mr. Richardson in March 1867 at the George Hotel, twenty fully paid up £5 shares went unsold as they only achieved £4 7s 6d and were bought in. If share prices are a guide to business success it would seem that the Company was not seen as a firm investment for when sixteen fully paid up £5 shares were offered by auction in January 1869 they sold for prices varying from £3 6s 0d to £3 10s 0d. In comparison shares in the Stamford Gas and Coke Company which had a face value of £50 were selling for £83 or £84 each. Clearly by 1891 the Company was in difficulty as in the August of that year the then Company Secretary, a Mr. H. B. Barnett, issued a notice that a meeting would be held on September 1st to consider the ‘Financial and General Position of the Company, and determine whether the business of the Company ‘shall be continued or wound up voluntarily or otherwise, and to transact such other Business as may be necessary’. The decision was made to issue a Winding-Up Petition for the Company which was duly advertised in the London Gazette on September 25th 1891. On October 20th 1891 the Ketton Gas Works and Plant were offered for sale by auction. This included the Gas Manager’s House, Retort and Purifying Houses, Purifier, Scrubber, Condenser, Meters, Mains, and other Effects, on a site of approximately 600 square yards. It therefore comes as a surprise to discover that the sale of shares in the Company were still being advertised in the Stamford Mercury in May 1899 when thirty fully paid £5 shares were offered at auction. Clearly Ketton still enjoyed a gas supply for in May 1908 the Gas Works and Plant were again offered for sale as a going concern. The site was described as having a Stone-built and Slated Manager’s house, Stone-built and Tiled Retort and Purifying Houses, Gasometer, Purifier, Scrubber, Condenser, Meters, Mains, and other Effects. The purchaser was Mr. J.H.Silcox, the managing director of the Pontardawe (Swansea) Gas Company for £360. New ownership under new management resulted in a degree of investment for when finally the ‘fixed and loose plant’ was sold in April 1916 some of the equipment was relatively new. What effect the Great War had on the supply of coal, a labour force to run the plant, or the demand for gas is uncertain. Messrs. Richardson, the auctioneers, split the machinery into Lots, including a Gasometer in excellent condition with 6,000 cubic feet capacity, a new 3¼h.p. 1915 Gas Engine by Crossley with fitted water cylinder, a Gas Engine by Robinson of Manchester, a new 1914 Exhauster by Bryan, Donkin & Co., a Scrubber, a set of Condensers, a 1914 Station Meter by Willey & Co., a Winch for raising the Purifier Box Top, two Retorts Beds (one of three beds and the other of one bed) with lids, a Boiler, two Water Tanks, eighty nine new slot and ordinary Gas Meters, and thirty one Gas Cookers (1914). Along with other numerous Gas Fittings and other effects. The site was sold separately and in 1923 the cottage, retort house, outbuildings, along with about three miles of gas mains; was bought by Mr. Sivers of Ketton for £250. So ended Ketton’s gas supply until the arrival of natural gas sixty odd years later. Ketton Gas Works 1886 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Brazenose College, Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2024 Brazenose College in Stamford was reputedly a house occupied by disaffected students and masters from Oxford University during the Stamford Schism in 1333-35, when the rebel academics defected from Brazenose Hall and Merton College. [1] Tradition has it that one of the students took a brass nose-shaped door knocker from Brasenose Hall to Stamford, thereby providing a name for their new abode in the Lincolnshire town. Apart from its alleged association with the secession, little is known of this building. The designation of Brazenose College as an academic secular college or semi-collegiate hall [2] owes more to supposition than to hard fact. The first mention of a property in Stamford called Brasenose was in a lease in 1559, when a tenement belonging to the Corporation was known by this title. [3] A reference to ‘Phillip le maniciple atte Brasenose’ in 1335 [4] cannot necessarily be taken as evidence of occupation of the house by the migrant academics since Oxford antiquary Anthony à Wood added the words ‘in Stanford’ much later, [5] which may have been an unfounded assumption. Nonetheless, the surviving gateway indicates a thirteenth century date. [6] [7] After 1335 there is no indication that the Stamford property was used as a place of study. [8] Thomas Blore speculated that Brazen-Nose College was attached to the Grey, or Franciscan, Friars’ monastery ‘from the scite of which it is separated by a lane only.’ [9] The lane in question is most likely the modern-day Brazenose Lane but debate continues as to whether the identities of the Whitefriary and the Greyfriary were erroneously transposed by historians. [10][11] Fig.1 (a) Brazenose College and Gateway as depicted by John Speed in about 1600 (Extract of Stamford town plan inset in Speed’s map of Rutlandshire with Oakham and Stanford, 1611); (b) Drawing of College and Gateway based on Speed’s sketch Details of the structure of Brazenose College are literally sketchy. The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) surmised that it was a large stone building around a courtyard but it offered no evidence for this. [12] No doubt it had undergone many changes by the time it was described in the sixteenth-century lease as ‘a messuage called Brassen Nose in St. Paul’s [parish], with all houses, barns, stables and other buildings.’ [13] There are no formal images of the property and the only known illustration is the simple drawing on John Speed’s map of about 1600 (Fig.1(a)), which shows it as standing back from the street (now St Paul’s Street). The drawing depicts a L-shaped, two-storey building with a tower at its northeast corner and a detached gatehouse to the north affording access from the public thoroughfare (Fig.1(b)). Fig.2 Extract of a later version of Speed’s map showing the Brazenose Gate aligned with the boundary wall of the College grounds (Reproduced from History of Stamford by Rev C Nevinson) Speed’s illustration has been described as a generic representation and possibly an imaginative reconstruction. [14] However, credence is given to it by the illustrations of the town’s churches, where St Michael’s, St John’s, St George’s and St Martin’s churches are correctly depicted with towers and All Saints and St Mary’s with spires; also Browne’s Hospital which is shown with a bell lantern centrally on the roof as was the case before the almshouse was altered in 1870. [15] Sited centrally in front of the main college building, the freestanding gateway to the street appears to be recessed from the northern boundary wall. The rear of the College abuts the town’s east wall, close to where the latter veers away from Brazenose Lane before continuing southwards to St George’s Gate. Different versions of Speed’s map generally reproduce these characteristics of the central building faithfully but some show the gatehouse as being in line with the boundary wall (Fig.2). [16] Certain features of the College can be verified. Based on the visit of Brian Twyne, the Oxford antiquary, to Stamford in 1616, Wood recounts that the building retained its old name of Brasenose [sic] and that it had ‘a great gate and a wicket; upon which wicket is a face or head of old cast brass with a ring through the nose thereof.’ It also had a sizeable refectory. [17] Twyne stated that there was by then an alehouse in the hall and that ‘ye other rooms are put to other uses.’ [18] He did not mention any annexes, outbuildings or other auxiliary buildings. In 1673, when the College was in a very poor state of repair, Anthony Markham was given a building lease instructing him to spend £300 on the property within three years [19] but he paid to be discharged from the lease before any work was done. In 1688 Alderman Richard Burman was awarded a grant towards ‘flooring such roomes and glaseing soe much of ye windows as hee shall thinke necessary’ [20] but the building was instead pulled down in that year. Thirty-seven years later, in 1725, Alexander Morris, a workman involved in the demolition, told Stamford antiquary Francis Peck that the refectory, or hall, was a strange wide place with a fire hearth in the middle, adding that there were many little rooms and apartments about the rest of the house, with stone stairs leading up to them. [21] William Stukeley embellished this by stating that the house had ‘a fine hall or refectory and spacious lodgings with stone staircases up to the chambers.’ [22] Perhaps its use had changed again since Twyne’s visit. It is debatable whether there were sufficient grounds to justify Peck’s contention that the building was a typical university hall, or the supposition that the multiple little rooms were the students’ lodgings. [23] Nothing is known for certain about the use of the building. Fig.3 William Stukeley’s drawing of Brazen-Nose College* (Designs of Stanford’s Antiquitys, 1735) [*referred to herein as Brazenose Hall] After the medieval property was demolished, a new building, Brazenose Hall, [24] was erected close by on the site using recycled materials from the old college. [25] Stukeley’s drawing of this building in 1735 (Fig.3), [26] four years before it became the town workhouse, [27] indicates that it was erected immediately to the west side of the ancient gateway. The gateway is now incorporated into the front wall of the garden of the current Brazenose House at number 28 St Paul’s Street. James A Knipe’s plan of Stamford, from a survey carried out in 1833 (Fig.4), confirms the location of the original Brazen Nose College. It shows the northern boundary of the College site extending eastwards along St Paul’s Street to Brazenose Lane from the smaller of the two listed barns (A1, A2) flanking the entrance to what is now Stamford School’s car park (Fig.5). Fig.4 Extract of James Knipe’s map of Stamford, with the site of Brazen Nose College circled Fig.5 Site of Brazenose College (Drawing based on Knipe’s Plan of the Borough of Stamford and Saint Martin’s Stamford Baron, 1833) Unlike Speed (Fig.1(a)), Knipe does not show the east wall cutting sharply into the college site. The course favoured by the Royal Commission (Fig.6) corresponds to the present wall along the southern boundary of the car park and the ditch below it now occupied by cottages and gardens.[28] Fig.6 Line of the medieval town wall with its suggested course across the Brazenose site (A. is the site of St Paul’s Gate and B. the site of St George’s Gate. ‘scarp’ marks the present wall and ditch) [Drawing based on RCHME map] It has been queried whether the Brazenose Gateway was originally the entrance gate to the college, or alternatively whether it might first have been a doorway inside the building. [29] Twyne’s description of the brass knocker on the wicket door suggests that it was indeed the entrance gate. It has also been questioned whether the gateway now stands in its original position. Based on the information that he received from Alexander Morris, Peck tells us that the gateway ‘stood formerly more backward than it does now; but, when pulled down with the college, the corporation.....ordered it to be set up again, though not in the very same place where it stood before, yet as near as might be.’ [30] However, Markham’s lease in 1673 implies that the gate already stood alongside the street and the Royal Commission found no structural indication that it had been moved. [31] Stukeley’s drawing shows it directly alongside the new Brazenose Hall and opening on to the street (Fig.3). The gateway was left intact when this later building was itself razed to the ground in 1822. [32] Fig.7 Sketch map combining details from the maps of 1600 (Speed) and 1833 (Knipe) showing the possible location of the college buildings (From Clark, M. Archaeological Recording at New Carpark Stamford School, Stamford. Site of Brazenose College Stamford, 1995) An archaeological evaluation of Stamford School in 1992, and subsequent ground works in 1995, revealed the remains of walls which were thought to have been part of Brazenose College. [33] One of the walls, comprising irregularly-sized and rough-faced limestone blocks with a rubble core, was approximately 0.4 metres in width and mainly dry stone in construction. Roof tiles and a stone-lined well shaft were also discovered. Although lying within its precinct, no evidence was obtained that the well had existed in the time of the College. However, after the demolition of the college buildings there was no substantial building in that area of the site that might have warranted the construction of a new well. [34] Because the 1559 lease described an extensive range of buildings to its east, it has been surmised that the college may have been located slightly further to the west on the site than shown on Speed’s map (Fig.7). [35] Fig.8 Brazenose Gateway in Stamford The Brazenose Gateway (Fig.8) is now the only vestige of the putative medieval college. One of the oldest surviving architectural structures in Stamford, it was scheduled as an ancient monument in 1951 and was listed Grade I in 1954. [36] The gateway has been rebuilt on several occasions [37] but the general design has been retained throughout the various restorations. [38] Acquired by Brasenose College in 1890, the original Brazenose Knocker holds pride of place above the high table in the hall of the Oxford college (Fig.9(a)), while the present knocker in Stamford is a replica (Fig.9(b)). [39] Fig.9 (a) Original Brazen Nose Knocker on display in Brasenose College, Oxford (The iron ring has been replaced eccentrically); (b) Replica knocker on Brazenose Gate Brazenose College is integral to the story of Stamford’s ephemeral medieval university. Of all of the supposed colleges dubiously linked with the university, it has the strongest claim to a semblance of the truth. A print version can be downloaded HERE References [1] Sheehan N J (a). Stamford University: the stuttering dream. Stamford, 2012. pp.28-46 [2] Knowles, David and Hadcock, R Neville. Medieval Religious Houses England & Wales. London: Longman, 1971 (first edition published 1953). pp.455-56 [3] Hartley, John S and Rogers, Alan. The Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford. Stamford Survey Group Report 2, 1974. Published by University of Nottingham. pp.76-7 [4] Hartley and Rogers [5] Wood, Anthony à. Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis, 1674, Vol.1. First published in English by John Gutch. Oxford, 1792; I: 432 [6] Royal Commission on Historical Monuments England (RCHME). An Inventory of Historical Monuments. The Town of Stamford. London: HMSO, 1977. p.144 [7] Madan, F. The Name and Arms of the College, including the Brazen Nose and the Stamford Migration. Brasenose College Quatercentenary Monographs. Vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. pp.15-20 [8] Madan [9] Blore, Tho. An Account of the Public Schools, Hospitals, and other Charitable Foundations, in the Borough of Stanford in the Counties of Lincoln and Rutland. Stanford: Drakard, 1813. pp.23-24 [10] RCHME, pp.32-34 [11] Ball, Linda. Grey Friars or White Friars?: In search of Stamford’s Friaries. North Chailey: Chalybeate Books, 2021 [12] RCHME, p.144 [13] Hartley and Rogers [14] Smith, John F H (ed.). Stukeley and Stamford, Part II. Tribulations of an Antiquarian Clergyman, 1730-1738. Lincoln Record Society. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2023. p.82 [15] RCHME, Plate 67 [16] Nevinson, Rev C. History of Stamford. Stamford: Henry Johnson, 1879 [17] Wood [18] Twyne, Brian. Stanforde in Lyncolnshyre. Bodl. MS Twyne 22. fol. 92r (p.152) [19] Hartley and Rogers [20] Simpson, Justin. Stamford Parish Registers. (Extracted from the Reliquary Quarterly Journal and Review). p.216 [21] Peck, Francis. The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford (Academia tertia Anglicana). London, 1727. XI VII [22] Hartley and Rogers [23] Peck [24] Sheehan N J (b). The Brazenose Site in Stamford. http://stamfordlocalhistorysociety.org.uk/brazenose-site-stamford [25] Hartley and Rogers [26] Stukeley, William. Designs of Stanford’s Antiquitys, 1735. Plate 70; Designs, 75 [27] Hartley and Rogers [28] RCHME, pp.4-5 [29] Hartley and Rogers [30] Peck [31] RCHME, p.150 [32] Drakard, John. The History of Stamford in the County of Lincoln. Stamford: Drakard, 1822. p.609 [33] Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record. Site of Brazenose College, Stamford. HER number 30625. www.lincstothepast.com . Accessed 11.12.2011 [34] Clark, Michael. Archaeological Recording at New Carpark Stamford School, Stamford. Site of Brazenose College Stamford, SAM 256. Lindsey Archaeological Services, 1995 [35] Clark [36] British Listed Buildings. Brazenose College Gate. Retaining Walls of College www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-193786-brazenose-college-gate [37] Rogers, Alan. The Medieval Buildings of Stamford. Stamford Survey Group Report 1, 1970. pp.42-43 [38] Sheehan, N J (c). Stamford’s Brazenose Gateway. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. Volume 50 (2015). December 2018. pp.105-16 Previous Next

< Back The State of Stamford's Housing at the end of the Great War Chris Hunt 2022 At the General Election held in 1918. Lloyd George, a Liberal politician, and Prime Minister of the War Coalition Government, called for "a country fit for heroes to live in". If not fully accepted by all political parties, it was one that none could argue against. It was therefore not surprising that the resulting elected Coalition Government of which nearly two thirds were Conservatives Members of Parliament, followed this ethos by carrying out a number of reforms championed by their junior partners, the Liberal Party. One of these revolved around improving the housing stock for working class families. A commissioned Parliamentary report on housing was produced by the Tudor Walters Committee in November 1918. This led to the The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act of 1919. The recommendation of the committee and the subsequent Act set the standards for council house design in the inter-war years. It was in this atmosphere that the Borough of Stamford Medical Officer of Health, Mr E.A.Hutton Attenborough M.B. B.S. presented his 1918 report to the town’s Health Committee in March 1919. Housing was a major concern and he stated that he would like to see upwards of 200 houses built to replace those he wished to see closed. And that these new houses should be built as a Garden City, either singly or in pairs, and not to be more than eight to the acre. Once built he stated that he would ask the Council to close every court in Stamford and also numerous streets. Not only closed, but demolished, thereby improving the ‘supply of air’ to adjacent properties and also allowing the widening of some roads in the Borough. As to the list of streets to be demolished in whole or in part: 1) Water Street. 2) North Street, including Belgrave Terrace and School Terrace. 3) East Street and Hope Terrace. 4) Elm Street. 5) Gas Street, Stokoe’s Buildings and Milner’s Row. 6) Welland Street and Tenter Lane. 7) Wharf Road, from St George’s School House to St Leonard’s Street. 8) North side of St Leonard’s Street, except Cornstall Buildings. 9) Brazenose Lane. 10) Bath Row. 11) Sheep Market, Castle Buildings. 12) Austin Street and Austin Friar’s Lane. 13) Eight Acres and Foundry Road. Besides these streets the Medical Officer of Health stated that there were numerous other houses dotted around the town which needed to be closed, and that there were some betterclass houses in the ‘condemned streets’ which his remarks did not apply to. Concerns were also expressed over the sewerage system in the town and the supply of fresh water, neither were adequate, even by the standards of the day. As to the sewerage system, this had been improved before the Great War, but was still far from perfect and some expensive alterations and additions were necessary. The report also raised concerns over the Water Supply, both in quantity and quality and that fresh steps were needed to provide the town with a pure and plentiful supply. It was his understanding that the Stamford St Martin’s and Wothorpe Water Works Company, whose proprietor was The Most Hon. The Marquess of Exeter was consulting experts on this matter. The Medical Officer of Health was of the firm opinion that the Borough Council should now procure powers from the Local Government Board to build at least 200 houses and that as these were built, then an equal number of the worst houses should be closed (and demolished). And that under such a State-aided housing scheme the first too benefit should be those who were living under conditions dangerous to health. The then private sector developers were continuing to build private housing after the War on the eastern edge of the town along Doughty Street and Rutland Road and subsequently Drift Road, Drift Avenue and Drift Gardens. But, it was the Borough’s Council House Policy with the development of the council house estates north and south of New Cross Road and the gradual condemning of the slums in the centre of the town, that so radically changed the shape of the town in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and improve the living conditions Aided by Government Legislation and the Medical Officer of Health’s Report presented to the Council in 1919 kick-started the post-war expansion of the town. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STAMFORD TAXATION RETURNS Professor Alan Rogers 2012 This paper includes transcripts of some of the more important taxation returns which survive for both parts of Stamford and the vill of Bradcroft from 1332 until 1524. The source for each of the transcripts has been given 1. 1332-33 SUBSIDY This tax granted by parliament in 1332 became the basis of most parliamentary taxes until the seventeenth century. This is the assessment for Stamford and Bradcroft taken sometime between 16 September 1332 and 6 June 1333 (6 Edward III). The tax was levied at one tenth on assessed property in towns like Stamford with Bradcroft, and one fifteenth in rural areas including Stamford Baron. It does not seem to have been collected by parishes as were all later taxes and levies. The original is in the National Archives (TNA) E179/135/15. I have used the transcript available at http://www.historicalresources.myzen.co.uk/LINC/lincstam.html but have checked it against the original. [1] the name usually used for Peterborough 2. THE POLL TAX OF 1379. The poll tax was a tax on all persons over the age of 16 ( excedent’ etatem xvj annorum ) except married women and ‘true mendicants’. It was granted by parliament in the last year of the reign of Edward III and collected during the early years of Richard II; it resulted in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and was abolished then. Two documents are transcribed here. 2a: Lay poll tax c1379 The first is the return of lay persons. The original is in the National Archives (TNA) at E179/135/76. I have used the transcript published by C C Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 (Oxford University Press/British Academy, 2001, pp 28-29, but have checked the original (thanks to Dr Paul Dryburgh of TNA). The document is very fragmentary and undated – it must date after May 1379 The tax was collected by parishes as were most of the other taxes from this time onwards. Most first names have been standardised. Note: this list is incomplete. We know from TNA E359/8B that the total number of Stamford poll tax was 1218. This list contains only 197 names, some 16%. Only four of the ten parishes are complete and two others have a small portion of the taxpayer list. [2] menuwe merchant : The normal meaning of this term is ‘small merchant’, but in the case of the three merchants so named in this list (and there would almost certainly have been others in the missing part of the assessment), it clearly relates to substantial traders. The reason for its use here is that the poll tax graded the tax for merchants into great merchants (20s), sufficient merchants (13s 4d) and lesser merchants and artisans (6s 8d or less). The assessors were saying in effect that these merchants should pay at the lowest rate,although all three were in fact traders on a substantial scale [ 3 ] souter, suter – shoemaker [4] shoemaker or leather worker [ 5 ] I feel sure this should be dyer, not dyker; he was Alderman of the borough [ 6 ] maker and or seller of blankets [7] I take this to mean fletcher [ 8 ] This may be Maidenhead – the original is obscure; there was an inn in Stamford called the Maidenhead in the 16th century in St Martin’s parish [ 9 ] see note 2 above [10] many spellings – often Stainby. Some words used: souter, suter - shoemaker corvisor – boot and shoemaker horner - worker in horn huckster – small street trader menuwe merchant – see note above sherman – shearer of woollen garment 2b: Poll tax on St Michael’s nunnery c 1377 The second document is a return of the nuns at St Michael’s nunnery. The original is TNA E179/238/77 – it is undated but clearly refers to the poll tax. Alice Copuldyke was presumably Prioress at this time. Most of the surnames are those of local towns or villages. Schedule of nuns of St Michael extra Stamford: Dna Alicia de Cobildik, Margaret de Redings, Isabella de Malteby, Isabella de Alyngton, Beatrix de Blisworth, Katerina fiz Alayn, Johanna Fischiner?, Margas de Swinstede, Katerine de Welton, Anna Marmion, Isabella Purlay, Margaret de Manton, Editha de Grantham, Margeria de Manton, Maria de Spalding, Agnes de Wrangle, Iveta de Tatersale, Emma de Tallington, Agnes de Halington, each at 12d 3. INCOME TAX 1450 In 1450, an income tax was levied on the richer sort of people at a rate of 6d in the £. Only a fragment of this survives for Stamford in TNA E179/276/44. This tax does not seem to have been collected by parishes. It is probable that the first twenty or so names are those of the First and Second Twelves (the town council). It is damaged and in parts illegible; the figures in parentheses below have been calculated from the rest of the document. What can be read is as follows: 4. 1524 SUBSIDY In May 1523, parliament granted Henry VIII a tax, assessed on the value of their land or goods. The return for Stamford dated 24 January 1524 survives in TNA E179/136/315. It is very full but the document is obscure at places. The tax was collected by parishes; strangely there are two entries for St Stephen’s parish (Holy Trinity) outside the east gate; it may by then have been divided between two of the larger parishes. Some of the wealthiest taxpayers were required to pay their tax up front – these are marked ‘antic’ [anticipated payment] [ 11 ] It appears he paid ‘£6 antic’ but the text of the document is illegible at this point St Mare paryshe 5. TAXATION LIST 1581 For the taxation list of 1581, see Alan Rogers, John Hartley and Abigail Gomulkiwicz 2020 William Cecil’s Survey of Stamford 1595: a town in turmoil Abramis publications, Bury St Edmunds A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Stamford Institution John S Hartley 2018 THE STAMFORD INSTITUTION – the “Graeco-Egyptian” building on the north side of St Peter’s Hill. Foremost among the cultural societies in Stamford in the mid-nineteenth century was the Literary and Scientific Institution, which had been founded in 1838. By 1850 the first general enthusiasm had worn off, and in 1851 its Annual Report was critical of the absence of the local clergy ‘who from their mental cultivation and general pursuits were eminently qualified in this way to convey information and sound instruction to the members.‘ Lectures were poorly attended, people preferring, so the President stated, ‘slackness of attendance at Lectures from which valuable information might have been obtained; whilst such frivolous exhibitions as those of “Bloomers” and conjurors were crowded.’ There were problems, however, for ‘no lecturers had offered themselves during the past year, a circumstance to be attributed ‘ the President believed, ’to the disturbance of the ordinary current of events by the Great Exhibition.’ During the nineteenth century membership fluctuated considerably; in 1851 there were 136 members but by 1856 there were some 316 paid up members, a most impressive number for such a relatively small country town. However, some saw the Institution as a force for the education of the ‘lower classes’ and there were too few, so it was thought, of such people who were members. A Mr. Chapman reflected, in 1853, upon the fact that it was regrettable that although shops closed early, few assistants used their spare time wisely. ‘They had not joined reading societies, and he feared they had imbibed (sic) habits which severely taxed their resources, and in the pursuit of pastime which was neither conducive to their health nor mental improvement.’ Attempts were made to provide lectures which were educational and which covered a very wide range of topics. In 1854 a writer in the Annual Report observed that it was ‘easier to train the juvenile taste than to correct old habits – to mould the infant mind than to change the adult idiosyncracy.’ A series of lectures on Human Physiology had a total of over 2000 attendances, while other single lectures in the same year, 1854, included subjects like the Uses of Poetry, the Circulation of the Blood, the Origins and Uses of Coal, and Sanitary Science. On the lighter side there was a lecture on Popular Illusions, while in the following year the best attended lectures were probably those by George Grossmith author (with his brother Weedon) of The Diary of a Nobody, who spoke on Lecturing, and Wit and Humour. He was a regular visitor to the Institution, and his lectures were generally very popular indeed though the most at any one meeting in the 1850’s and 1860’s seems to have been when 319 attended a lecture on Microscopical Science. On occasion, lectures had a relevance to the town and its immediate problems. When the local Medical Officer of Health spoke to members in 1868 he chose as his subject Drainage and the Water Supply of Towns, and this was later published by the printer to the Institution, John Ford of Red Lion Square. Newman’s theme was the unsanitary nature of the cesspits and pools which were scattered all over the town. He proposed the use of earth closets, and the closure of all open wells. Water, he argued, should be supplied to all the town from the springs to the north-east and east of the town. Two years later Newman’s summary of the state of the town and his plans for improvement were echoed in an official report. As well as providing series of lectures, the Institution had a substantial library, containing over 6000 volumes in 1862, from which members might borrow. At first there were limitations on borrowing since it was felt that quarterly members (generally of the ‘lower classes‘), who paid a considerably lower subscription than annual members, might damage the books they borrowed! [see the 1845 letter to the Mercury at the end of this article]. This fear seems to have been overcome, perhaps through a pair of lectures in 1855, entitled What is a Gentleman? and The Elevation of the Working Classes. Newspapers were taken in the Reading Room, and there was also a sizeable museum, though this appears to have been mainly a casual collection of items. Members, like Samuel Sharp, printer and publisher, and no mean geologist, may well have ensured that some parts of the collections were satisfactorily arranged. For a time there was a flourishing Chess Club. The finances of the Institution were never very secure - far too much reliance seems to have been placed on meeting any extra-ordinary expenses out of profits from special events and the shareholders, who had helped to build the magnificent headquarters on St. Peter’s Hill in 1842, had frequently to go without any dividends at all. Most years a ball was held to raise money, and in 1855 a ‘Panorama of the Seat of War in the Crimea’ was exhibited at the Mid-Lent Fair, partly for the benefit of the funds of the Institution. One source of income which was both uncertain and insubstantial was the Camera Obscura on the roof of the building. There were several attempts to encourage people to take advantage of it, but it made little money and was removed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In spite of all its failings, the Stamford Literary and Scientific Institution played an important part in the life of mid-Victorian Stamford. With its lectures, library and museum under the same roof it provided something which no other single organisation provided in Stamford. The Institution survived until 1910 when all its effects were sold; the library and museum, both containing important items relating to Stamford, were scattered. From sale catalogues it is possible to gain some idea of the value and content of its collections, and it must be a cause of great regret that they were not preserved intact. Part of the reason for the closing of the Institution is probably to be found in the lack of regular support from the most influential members of’ the town establishment, but the opening of the Town Library in 1906 must have further undermined the already shaky, financial position of the Institution. Notes Sources for a History of the Stamford Literary and Scientific Institution. This article has been based on the annual reports and minute books, to be found in the Phillips Collection Room in the Town Hall. Further information about meetings, the closure etc. will be found in the local papers. Many handbills and notices survive in various collections. John S. Hartley To the EDITOR of the MERCURY. Sir,-By a droll coincidence, I find in one column of your last week's paper the letter of Juvenis, complaining that the quarterly members of the Stamford Institution are dissatisfied at not being allowed to take books out of the library; and in another column, that even villages are applying to be admitted as branches to, and to be supplied with books from, the Lincoln Institution. This is indeed a queer contrast; and it is not to be wondered at that members should be seceding from our Stamford Institution and (as stated in your paper two or three weeks ago, from their report) that at Lincoln the number of quarterly members is constantly increasing, and that the Committee are thereby enabled to expend liberal sums in the purchase of new books. We read that in the early days after the Reformation, when copies of the scriptures were few, bibles were affixed in churches, but chained so as not to be carried away; now, our religious societies are circulating the scriptures in the prisons and the abodes of poverty at home, and among the heathen abroad. At Stamford, as "Juvenis" justly complains, he cannot take home with him such excellent works as the "Bridgwater Treatises," because forsooth bound volumes are sealed books to mere quarterly subscribers; whilst in the more fortunate vicinity of Lincoln, not only available are those works containing the writings of Sir Charles Bell, Dr. Buckland, Prout, Roget Chalmers, and the plebeian quarterlies (and even to the juveniles who may choose to read them), but such books are, it seems, likely to be sent forth to enlighten abroad, and to be at the service of the reading public in the villages. Do, Mr. Editor, urge upon certain members of the Committee the necessity of a journey to Lincoln. Stamford, Dec.30, 1845.Your's &c.,SENSEX. A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath Previous Next

< Back Stamford Borough Police Force 1836 to 1889 By Chris Hunt Today in 2026 there is much talk in political circles of reform to the structures of the police forces across England and Wales with amalgamations and the construction of a National Police Force. Such restructuring is not new. The Stamford Borough Police Force came into existence on January 2 nd 1836 when Mr William Reed was appointed Chief Constable, assisted by nine constables. Mr Reed was very much a trusted member of society in Stamford. He also held the posts of Sergeant at Mace, Deputy Clerk of the Borough’s Markets with additional responsibility for Weights and Measures, for which he held the title of Inspector, and Clerk of one of the local Turnpike Trusts. The force was amalgamated into the Lincolnshire Constabulary in 1889. Prior to this date, the town had fallen under a system of Watch and Ward, although controlled by the Borough Council, it was very much structured around the five parishes. This system had evolved from the powers granted to the town under the Charter granted by Edward IV in 1462. The powers within the Charter did not extend south of the River Welland. It was not until the 1830s that parts of St Martin’s Parish became part of Stamford for some political functions. Stamford police on the steps of the Town Hall The Police Force was very much under the control of the Borough Council through the Watch Committee, who drew up the Rules and Regulations which were then agreed by the full Council before being sent to the Home Office for endorsement. In 1842 the regulations insisted the police constables wore their complete uniform when on duty. They were all issued with their own numbered personal truncheon, which had the Royal Cypher and the Borough Crest. The truncheon, in addition to being for personal protection, was also their authority, and was similar to a warrant card today. One of their responsibilities was to visit public houses during the hours of divine service on a Sunday to make sure that no intoxicating liquors were being sold or consumed. Another duty was to look out for gambling on a sabbath. This involved visiting the outlying areas of the town where groups of men would congregate to play cards for money, Uffington Meadows being a favoured spot. The problem that these early policemen had was, when chasing fugitives, they needed to catch the individual before he/she crossed the Borough boundary, because their authority vanished once they crossed the border. On one occasion, wrongful arrest was successfully claimed when the individual was apprehended on the south bank of the River Welland in the Parish of Barnack. New regulations were made in 1857 which included the provision that all constables had to have his rank and number put in a conspicuous place in front of his premises. The name and addresses of the Policemen started to appear in local directories, so everybody knew where they lived. In 1873 for instance the police force was made up of: - Mr Richard Ward, Chief Superintendent, 30 Scotgate. John Harrison, Sergeant, 2 Austin Friars’ Lane. David Leach, Sergeant, 3 Milner’s Row, Belton Street. George Dalrymple, Acting Sergeant, 4 Milner’s Row, Belton Street. No. 1 William Wade, Merit Class, 1 Palmer’s Buildings, Empingham Road. No. 2 Francis Gray, Merit Class, 19 Belton Street. No.3 Samuel Burrell, First Class, 9 Exeter’s Court, St Peter’s Street. No. 4 John Martin, First Class, 58 St Leonard’s Street. No. 5 Richard Wright, Third Class, 4 Welland Street. In 1857, other changes included the creation of a structure within the police force with the introduction of sergeants and the removal of the gap between the Night Duty, which previously finished at 5.00am, and the Day Shift, which started at daylight. In the same year, consideration was given by the Watch Committee to amalgamation with the then newly formed Lincolnshire Constabulary. The decision was made to keep the local control, even though such a move would have resulted in a saving of £93 0s 0d. The Stamford Borough Police Force was a well-managed force as it was described in 1861 as “one of the most efficient small forces in the district” by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary. Chief Constables/Chief Superintendent William Reed January 2 nd 1836 to October 20 th 1859 (died in office). Richard Ward November 22 nd 1859 to November 21 st 1885 (retired). Alfred Palmer November 26 th 1885 to September 29 th 1886 (required to retire), (formerly a Sergeant in the Stamford Borough Police). John William Lawson September 30 th 1886 to March 11 th 1889) (Chief Constable at Peterborough), (formerly an Inspector of the Rotherham Borough Police). On April 1 st 1889, Stamford lost its independent police force and had to amalgamate with the Lincolnshire Constabulary as the Borough had a population of less than 10,000. However, for several years, Stamford remained as a separate division of the County Force. Sources. Jenkinson’s Royal Albert Almanack 1873 Lincolnshire Constabulary 1857 – 1957 (Author Unknown) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Uffington’s road block defences in World War II Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Road blocks manned by local Home Guard units were important to British anti- invasion strategy and obstacles of different shapes and sizes were built in large numbers in the early 1940s. Anti-tank barriers were generally made of massive reinforced concrete blocks. These were often cubic and generally came in two sizes, with sides of 5 or 3ft 6in. They frequently had loops at the top for the attachment of barbed wire (Fig.1). According to an unpublished document in the Defence of Britain Gazetteer (1), an anti-tank block lies beside the main road (the old A16, now the A1175) through Uffington (2). Described as a rough cube of concrete, it is situated to the immediate south of the entrance to The Coach House (Grid ref: TF 064 075). Fig.1 Example of anti-tank cubes The object in this position is a large solid ‘cube’ (Fig.2) which measures 3ft x 2ft 8in at the top and stands just under 2ft high but is partially sunk into ground. Fig.2 Heavy solid cube close to the entrance to the Coach House on the A1175 through Uffington village A minimum of two such obstacles would be needed to obstruct the highway against invading tanks and indeed fragments of a second similar block can be seen a third of a mile away on the north bank of the River Welland, on the west side of Uffington Bridge (Fig.3(a) and (b)). (a) (b) Fig.3 (a) Fractured stone block near Uffington Bridge (March 2021); (b) Smaller fragment close by: a chip off the old block? However, the roadside cube appears to be comprised of natural stone rather than manufactured from cast concrete and it has no loop, holes or slots on any of its visible surfaces. Moreover, Uffington residents have no memory of a roadblock there during the war or of the cube being present in its immediate aftermath. It is thought to have appeared only after that section of road was diverted through the north-east corner of Uffington Estate in 1967, suggesting that the blocks might be remnants of the fabric of Uffington House which was destroyed by fire in 1904. Regardless of whether this was truly an anti-tank obstacle, Uffington was not without anti-invasion defences. As well as temporary timber barriers on the approaches to the village, simpler roadblocks against lighter vehicles were formed with concrete cylinders. One such example, measuring 2ft tall by 2ft in diameter, can be seen alongside the A1175 outside the entrance to Copthill Farm (Fig.4). Fig.4 Cylindrical concrete obstacle by the entrance to Copthill Farm (2013) Stocks of these concrete cylinders were also stored beside Uffington Bridge on Barnack Road, from where they could be manoeuvred into place across the road. A different type of roadblock was deployable at the south end of the bridge where sockets were cut in the road (Fig.5), into which steel girders or railway lines could be inserted vertically and old tyres passed over them and set alight. The road has been resurfaced many times since then and no trace remains of the sockets. Fig.5 Example of sockets for a ‘vertical girder’ type of roadblock Many road block defences were dismantled during the war and the rest soon after. Today, little remains of Britain's anti-invasion preparations and the provenance of Uffington’s putative anti-tank block is open to question. References (1). Osborne, Mike. Unpublished Document. Defence of Britain Gazetteer, 1999, p.7 (2). Monument record ML183582 – Anti-Tank Block, Uffington Acknowledgement I am grateful to Tom Francis (1928–2018), Paul Genever and Malcolm Towell for sharing their thoughts on Uffington’s wartime defences and the origins of the cube. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Town Bridge, Stamford By Nicholas J Sheehan The Town Bridge spans the River Welland, connecting the ancient burhs of Stamford and Stamford Baron. The stone bridge is the only vehicle crossing over the river and it carried the Great North Road (A1) through Stamford before a by-pass was built to the west in 1960. There may have been a bridge over the Welland since the early tenth century. Richard Butcher’s assertion that a stone bridge was erected by Alfred the Great, when he rebuilt the town after it was destroyed by the Danes, was disputed by Francis Peck and a more likely candidate is his son, Edward the Elder, when he established the settlement on the south side of the river in 918. The mention in Domesday Book of a bridge at Stamford confirms that one existed by 1086 but it is not until the twelfth century that there was definitely a stone bridge on the present site. Constructed of Barnack stone, the medieval bridge had five arches. Possibly it was rebuilt to a similar plan several times. When finally replaced by the present structure in the mid-nineteenth century, two of the central arches were higher and of a later date than the two on the northern half and their matching arch at the south end. However, the general appearance of the bridge may have remained substantially unchanged for over 600 years. The blocked surviving twelfth century arch has a span of about 21 ft. Drawing of the medieval Town Bridge based on a picture by J H Buckler, 1804 (Reproduced from Martin Smith’s Stamford Then and Now, 1992) In 1558, alderman John Houghton built a Town Hall and gaol over the bridge gate at the north end of the Town Bridge. Lord Burghley’s Hospital was founded on the south side by William Cecil in 1597, replacing the Medieval Hospital of St John the Baptist and St Thomas the Martyr which had been there since about 1174. Town Bridge and Bridge Gate with Town Hall above (from W Harrod’s The Antiquities of Stamford and St. Martin’s, 1785) Bridge Gate was demolished in 1777 when the Wansford Road Turnpike Trustees improved the road and provided a new town hall on St Mary's Hill. Even without this obstruction, the bridge’s single carriageway was described as the ‘narrowest and most dangerous nuisance between London and Edinburgh’. Able to accommodate only one carriage at a time, accidents, near misses and altercations for right of way were a frequent occurrence. Pedestrians had to retreat into triangular recesses in the parapets to avoid carts and horse-drawn vehicles. The bridge was owned by the Marquess of Exeter, who evidently found the responsibility of maintaining it onerous as evidenced by his offer in 1834 ‘to transfer to the Corporation, or to any other persons, the right of taking toll at Stamford Bridge in return for being relieved of the obligation to repair the bridge’. Lord Exeter was also responsible for repairing the potholed road for 100yd on either side of the bridge. Deemed to be ‘an extremely bad bargain’, the offer was rebuffed. In 1842, at the Marquess’s expense, the bridge was paved with large blocks of Aberdeen granite and a raised foot pavement of between two and four feet wide was added on each side, narrowing the carriageway further to only eight feet in width. While the upgrade may have enhanced the appearance of the bridge and the safety of pedestrians, it did nothing to improve the flow of vehicular traffic, allowing as it did for the passage of only a single carriage at a time. Condemned as ‘shamefully narrow and dangerous’ and a ‘great nuisance’, the fate of the bridge would be settled with the coming of the railway. The proposal by the Midland Railway Company to route the Syston to Peterborough Railway through Stamford was initially strongly opposed by the Marquess. The original intention was to build a station on the north side of the Welland and to lay the track on a level with the road at the end of the Town Bridge, where trains would stop and then proceed at a speed no greater than 4mph. The Parliamentary Railway Committees stipulated that the Midland Company should commit a sum of up to £5000 towards widening the bridge, which could be paid to Lord Exeter to carry out the work himself under the supervision of the Company’s engineer and surveyor. Eventually, the Marquess dropped his opposition to the railway, subject to the line being brought to a station on the south side of the river, where he could offer land for the purpose at upwards of £800 an acre. Faced with little choice, the Midland Company yielded to his demands, offering him £35,000 for the land in addition to £5000 to replace the Town Bridge. When the Syston and Peterborough Railway Bill was passed in the House of Commons in 1846, the contract for building the new bridge, to a design by local architects Edward and Henry Browning, was awarded to Robert Woolston, who was to use stone from Bramley Falls near Leeds and to complete the work by summer 1848. The new bridge, in a modern style, would consist of three arches (each of 30 feet span), with a 30-foot-wide carriageway and two footways, each of four feet in width; the parapets would be plain in appearance. To preserve access across the river throughout the duration of the work, a permanent causeway was constructed over the Meadows above the flood level and new bridges were installed at the sites of the George and Lammas bridges. A temporary footbridge was also erected from Mr Harper’s wharf to Water Street. The new roadway from St Martin’s to Sheepmarket was completed in July 1847 and demolition of the old bridge began that month. However, work was bedevilled by setbacks and progress was quickly halted by bad weather causing repeated flooding of a coffer dam, which necessitated driving fresh piles and creating a new watercourse before workmen were able to resume the task of removing the foundations of the old bridge. The delays and extra costs were financially crippling for Woolston and by March 1848 he had made a loss of £2,000 on the project. Despite negotiating a contract extension, he declared himself bankrupt the following month and Edward Browning then assumed direct control of the building operation. The bridge was eventually finished in March 1849 but its opening was postponed until 1 May pending completion of the Toll House at the north end. The final cost was about £8,000, which, after subtracting the Midland Railway Company’s contribution of £5,000, left the Marquess £3000 out of pocket. Toll House Front door of Toll house with date stone above (Photos N J Sheehan) With the opening of the new bridge, the Marquess provoked outrage by extending the scope of the pre-existing tolls to include the livestock and loaded vehicles of inhabitants and non-resident freemen of the town. The legality of this was questioned as no tolls had been taken in living memory from the townsfolk, who were believed to be exempt under the charters of Edward IV and James II. This cut no ice with the Marquess and, in the face of defiant resistance, the tolls were sometimes violently imposed. However, with increasing opposition to payment, the tolls became less attractive to potential bidders each time the lease was put up for auction. Unsuccessful in his attempts to pursue payment through the courts, the Marquess finally admitted defeat and abolished the tolls in 1868 in return for the Corporation undertaking responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the bridge. The toll house duly closed. The Victorian bridge comprises three low arches with cutwaters and solid parapets. It partially incorporates the blocked southernmost arch of the medieval bridge, which survives next to the substructure of the twelfth-century hospital of St John and St Thomas. Town Bridge (Photo John Daffurn) After assuming responsibility for its upkeep, the Corporation erected two ornamental gas lamps, one on each side of the centre of the bridge, which were later increased to four to provide sufficient light and achieve a satisfactory appearance. In 2017 when the lights were rusted and encrusted with grime, their columns were restored and repainted and new lanterns with LED lighting were installed. Town Bridge (Photo N J Sheehan) The Town Bridge has been the scene of serious flooding when the Welland has burst its banks. After a flood in 1570 damaged the north end of the bridge it was rebuilt at the expense of William Cecil. Other major floods occurred in 1641 and 1880; a plaque on the bridge records the flood line on 15 July 1880 when the river reached its highest level for two hundred years. The crossing over the Welland is still a pinch-point for vehicles approaching the town centre from the south. Measures to reduce traffic across the Town Bridge have included the imposition of a 7.5 tonne weight limit for HGVs. Nowadays, tail-backs still build up on either side of the bridge but three-phase traffic lights impose a degree of order on the flow of conveyances. Town Bridge is Grade II listed. Bibliography Mahany, Christine and Roffe, David. Stamford: The Development of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough. Anglo-Norman Studies 5, 1983 Peck, Francis. The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, 1727 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments England. The Town of Stamford. London: HMSO, 1977 Lincolnshire HER. Building record MLI94679 – Town Bridge, Stamford Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury 1834-1859, 1868, 1994, 2006 Historic England. The Bridge, Stamford - 1062178 A printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next