< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Find out about events at The Stamford Local History Society where we discover more about the history of our town and the local area. Become a member today. EVENTS In keeping with the aims of the Society, visits to local places of interest are arranged during the summer months. In addition, the Society may at other times of the year arrange commemorative displays in the town. Visits Summer 2027 Guided tour & refreshments at Molecey's Mill, West Deeping, £15 per person Prior years have included Guided tours of Longthorpe Tower, Apethorpe Palace & Burghley House Roof. The Stamford Canal Walk and Talk. Castor St. Kyneburgha's Church visit. Displays and Events Summer 2026 Heritage Open Day at Stamford Library Free Events. The Society is supporting a number of Walk and Talks and Research Workshops in Stamford Library. These will include: Stamford Walk & Talk Down Ryhall Road Saturday12th September with Chris Hunt. British Newspaper Archive Workshop Thursday 17th September with Chris Hunt. Walk & Talk Dry Pub Crawl Around the Centre of Stamford on Saturday 19th September with Chris Hunt. Weekly Wednesday sessions in Stamford Library. See Stamford Library website for details. Prior years have included Commemoration of hundredth anniversary of WWI at the Stamford Arts Centre A Dry Pub Crawl Around St Martin’s Parish. Stamford’s Medieval Walls and Gates. The Town's Early History along Ermine Street and Ryhall Road. Stamford's Northfields Estate.

< Back Fire at the Star Tea Company Shop on the High Street in 1904 On Monday afternoon as an assistant at the Star Tea Company shop in High Street, was clearing the window, preparatory to re-dressing it, when he noticed an escape of gas. Another assistant brought a light to ascertain where the leakage was, and immediately there was an outburst of flame which set fire to the ceiling. Fortunately, this was quickly subdued by means of wet sack, prior to the arrival of the hose cart from the fire station, but damage was done to the extent of about £5. Source Stamford Mercury (Friday) November 18th 1904 p4/c2 Note: - In 1904 The Star Tea Company shop was at No. 12 High Street. Originally a 16 th or early 17 th century building with 18 th century bay windows, the building was split into two shops (No. 11 and No. 12 High Street). The building (No 11 and No. 12) was completely re-built in 1982 for the Halifax Building Society and the presently (June 2025) empty premise would not be included in the RCHM volume. A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back David Cecil's Will and David Cecil's Wife: Two Notes Professor Alan Rogers 2012 William Cecil, Lord Burghley was obsessed with his family history. He continually sought and obtained information and produced several contradictory pedigrees; so any light that can be thrown on earlier generations of Cecils is valuable. David Cecil of Stamford, his grandfather, Alderman (i.e. mayor) and MP for the town, was a particular concern; for someone had charged Lord Burghley with being the son of an innkeeper (a story which is still repeated). This is not true: the basis for it is that David was given the Tabard in Stamford by John Dyccons glover, councillor and Alderman of Stamford in the 1490s and almost certainly father-in-law of David Cecil, to be used for his (Dyccons’) will. A full biography of David Cecil will be published shortly in Nottingham Medieval Studies (Alan Rogers, ‘The Parliamentary representation of Stamford, 1467-1509’). This note concerns two matters; his will and his wife. David Cecil’s will David Cecil made two wills. One is dated the Conversion of St Paul (25 January) 1535 [i.e. 1535/6] (PRO PROB 11/29 fol 2d-3) and the other (strangely) is dated the Conversion of St Paul 1536 [i.e. 1536/7] (to be found in British Library Cotton iv 29; it has been wrongly indexed as referring to the rector of St Peter’s church, Stamford, which is why it has been missed to date). It seems clear that the Cotton version was a draft and inaccurately dated, for it was the 1535/6 will which was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in March 1541/2, not the will dated 1536/7. There are a small number of differences between the provisions made in the two drafts. The sequence varies, and some items in the draft will are split apart. One clause in the draft is repeated twice in the final version. Two additional clauses relate to an extra payment to St George’s church and to the sale of swans for the benefit of David’s soul. The final will is then slightly longer than the draft will, with 39 clauses instead of 35. The wording of each clause varies from time to time. Richard Cecil remains sole executor to both; in the draft will, he is subject to the supervision of John Haryngton of Exton but this is not stated in the final will. The witnesses are very different. WILL OF DAVID CECIL January 1535/6 PRO Version In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversawn off seynt Paule Anno dni millesimo quingentesimo tricesimo quinto I David Cyssell of Stamford in the Countie of Lyncoln Esquier being of good and perfytt Remembrance in mynd, also well and perfitly deliberat make my testament and last Wyll in this maner and fourme following First I bequith my soule to almightie god and to our blessid lady seynt mary mother of mercy, and to all the glorious company of hevyn, and my body to be buryed in the parishe churche of seynt George of Stamford aforeseyd. Item I give to the high aulter of seynt George of Stamford ijs. Item to our ladyes works of lyncoln xijd. Item I will that my wyfe shall have all the plate that was hers before that I maryed her and also all other goodes of household that was hers at oure mariage. Also I give to my seyd wyffe Twenty ky[n]e and a bulle of myn owne goods in recompence of suche catell as she brought to me. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two horses and two mares. Item I give to my seyd wife Thirtie seme of malte and Ten scyme of Wheate and Ten scyme of barley and Threscore shepe, that ys to sey, ffouretie old shepe and Twenty lambes. And also I give to my seyd wyfe Twenty Lodes of wood. I give to my seyd wife two fetherbeds, one in the Nursery and an other in the Closet where she lyeth in. Item I give to my seyd wyff the bed and bedsted with the hengings of silke as yt stonds complete in the gesse Chamber by the strete. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a marke of Swannes markyd with laduls streght up and down the byll and the legges and she to enyoie yt to her and her assignes for ever. Item I give to Richard Cissell my eldest sone two complete fetherbeddes one over the Closett and another over the parlour as they stonde holy. Item I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to David my secounde sone two fetherbeddes complete, one at the steyrhed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fetherbed. Item I give to my seyd wyfe all my londs in Stamford in Nassyngton and els where for the terme of her lyff and after her departing I will that all my seyd londs do remayn to my seyd sone Richard Cissell and to his heires for ever. Item I give to my doughter Joane Twenty pounds sterling in mony or in mony worthe and that to be delyvered to Joane my wyfe being her naturall mother, to be in save custody of her seyd mother for the preferment and promocion of her maryage. Item I give to the fowre ordurs off freyers of Stamford to praye for me vjs viijd to every one of the seyd orders. Item I give to Jone my doughter the one half of household stuff at Dowsby as in brasse, pewter and bedding hangings lynyn and other stuf remayning at Dowsby and all this stuf to be in custodye of Jane my wyf unto the tyme of mariage off Joane my seyd doughter. Item I give to Richard Cyssell my sone all my titill and interest that I have in the Chantre londes that ys gyven for the fynding of a prest to singe for Sir Davyd Phillip in seynt Marys churche in Stamford. Also I give to my seyd/// sone Richard all my tytle and interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Stamford and in all other places the whiche John Dycons left to be song for by a prest in seynt mary churche aforeseyd for his soule and all crysten soules. Item I give to David Cyssell my secounde sone Twenty quarters of barley to be delyvered to hym by myn executour by four and of this side the feast of seynt Marten in Wynter next to folowe the dey of my departing from this lyfe and to be taken out of my Croppe that growith or may growe in Tynwell feelds. Item I will that two of my merke of swannes herebefore not bequeathed be solde by myn executour and the mony takyn for them to be dispoased for my soule. Item I will that all the hangings, tabulls, trestells and formes and other ymplyments in my halle, in my grete parlour and in my galery on the south syde of my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne ther as standers or heirelowms for ever. Item I bequeth to my wife ffyfty quarters of malte. Twenty quartetrs of barley. Ten quarters of wheate and xl lodes of wood. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two cuppes of sylver parcell gilte with covers, and a pece called the horne all gylt. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a pece gilt with the whetesheef in the bottom, the whiche I gaffe her before our mariage. Item I will that she have all her goods off household that were hers at the daye of oure mariage in as good state and repare as they were the same daye. Item I give to my sone Richard my best gowne and the choyse. Item I will that Anthony Vyllers have the secound gowne, my best dublett and my velvet Jackett. Item I wille that David my sone have my blake gowne of clothe lyned with damaske, a dublet of satten stoked, with a Jackett and my grene coate. Item will that Sir William Huddeston sing for my soule and all Crysten soules the one hole yere in the churche of seynt George in Stamford and to have v li for his stypent.fyve pounds sterling. Item I will that ther be given for the helth of my soule that three days xx li, that ys to sey at the daye off my buryall,, at the vijth daye and at the xxx ti daye. Item I give to the high aulter off seynt George for tythes and offerings not perfatly donne vjs viijd. Item I will that my detts be payd of my goods laufully knowen and axed. Item I will that every servaunte of myn household have blak coats. Item I will that Richard Wyer have a fetherbed. Item I ordeyn and make my seyd sone Richard Cissell my sole executour, to dispoase the resydue of my goods above or otherwise not given nor bequeathed for the honor of god and for the helth of my soule after the laudable maner that he can do or devyse. These being wytnes Sir Thomas Wenstare notary, John Bocher and Richard Wyre with many others. Probate at London 16 March 1541 David M. Loades , The Cecils: privilege and power behind the throne, London: The National Archives, 2007, following S T Bindoff , The House of Commons, 1509-1558, vols i-iii, Members, London: Secker and Warburg, 1982 , dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen, it is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1535/6. The will was proved in March 1541/2. COPY OR DRAFT WILL OF DAVID CECIL dated January 1536/7 BL Cotton Ch iv 29 In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversyon off Saynt Paule Anno dni millimo cccccmo tricesimo sexto I Davyd Cyssell off Stannford in the Countie of Lincoln Esquyer being off good and perfytt Remembraunce, In mynd also well and deliberate make my testament and last Wyll in maner and fforme ffoloyng. First I (bese del ) bequeth my soule to almyty god and to oure blessyd lady mother off mercy and to all the gloryouse Company off hevyn and my body to be buryed in the quere off Saynt George off Stannford aforesayd. Also I gyff to the hye aultar off Saynt George for tythes and offeryng not perfytely done vjs viijd. Item to oure ladyes werks off Lincoln xijd. Item I wyll that my wyffe shall have all the plate that was hyrs before that I maryed hyr. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij coppys off sylver parcell gylte with covers, a pece callyd the horn all gylte. Also I gyffe to my said wyffe a pece gylt with the whetesheffe in the bottom the which I gaffe hyr before our maryage. Also I wyll that she have all hyr good off howshold that were hyrs at the day of oure maryage in as good state and repayre as thei were that same day. Also I gyff to my said wyffe xxti ky[n]e and a bull off myn owne goods in recompence off such catell as she brought to me. Item I gyff to my said wyffe ij horsys and ij marys. Also I gyffe to my said [sic] l quarters of malte xxti quarters of Barleye, x quarters of wheite xlti lods of woode. And lx shepe that is to say xl old shepe and xx lambys. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij feytherbedds one in the Nursery and one other in the Clossett wher she lyethe. Also I gyff to my said wyffe (ij fetherbedds del ) the bed and bedsteid with the hyngyngs of sylke as it standeth complete in the gesse Chamber bye the strete. Also I gyff to my said wyffe a marke of Swanys merkyd with ladull streight upp and down the byll and the legge and she to enioye it to hyr and hyr assignes for ever. Also I gyff to Richard Cyssell myn eldest son ij complete fetherbedds one over the Clossett and one other over the parlure as they stand holly. Also I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to Davyd my second son ij feyther bedds complete, one at the stayr hed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fether bedd. Also I wyll that Davyd my said son shall have my blakke gown off clothe lyned with damaske and a dublett off saten stokked, a jackett and my grene cote. Also I gyff to Antonye Villers my second gown, my best dublett and my velvett jackett. Also I gyff to my said wyffe all my lands in Staunford in Nassington and els’ where for the term of hyr lyffe and after hyr departyng I wyll that all my said lands do remayne to my said son Richard Cycell and to his heyres for ever. Also I gyff to my doughter Jone xx li sterlyng in money or money wurthe and to be delyveryd to Jane my wyffe beyng hyr naturall mother, to be in save custodye off hyr said mother for preferment and promocion off hyr maryage. Also I gyff to every one off the four orders off frers off Staunford to pray for me vjs viijd. Item I gyff to Jhone my doughter the one half off howsehold stuffe at Dowsebeys as in brasse, pewter and beddyng hangyngs lynen and other stuff remaynyng at Dowsebye and all the stuff to be in custodye off Jane my wyffe unto the tyme off maryage off Jhone my said doughter. Also I gyffe to Richard Cyssell my son all my tytle and interest that I have in the Chauntre londs that be gyven for the fyndyng off a preste to syng for Sir Davyd Phylypp in saynt Marys Churche in Staunford. Also I gyff to my said sonne Richard all my tytle and Interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Staunford and in all other placys the which John Dycons left to be song for by a preste in saynt marys Church aforesaid for his soule and all crysten soulys. Also I gyff to Davyd Cyssell my second son xxti quarters off barley to be delyveryd to hym by myn executour before and over this half ffest of Saynt Martyn in Wynter next to ffolowe the day off my departyng from this lyffe and to be taken out off my Cropps that groweth or may growe in Tynwell ffelds. Also I wyll that my detts be payd off my goods laufully known and askyd. Also I wyll that all the hangyngs, tabulls, trestylls and fformes and other Implyments in the hall, in my greit parlure and in my galery on the south syde off my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne theyr as standerds or heyre lomes for ever. Item I wyll that Sir William Huddylston shall syng for my Soule and ( del ) all Crysten souls by the space of one yere next after my departyng in saynt George Churche in Staunford and shall have v li for hys stypend. Also I gyff to every off my servaunts a blakke cote off clothe and to Richard Wyre my servaunt a fetherbed. Item I wyll that theyr be gyven for the helthe off my soule and all Cristen souls at iij days xx li, that is to say at the day off my buryeng, at the vij thday and the xxx ti day. The Residue off my goods unbequethyd I gyff and bequeth unto Richard Cycell my son whom I make my sole executour, he to have ( del ) occupie and enioye my said goods to the payment and contentacion off my detts and the fulfyllyng and performacion off thys my testament and last wyll. Also I ordeyn and make Mr John Haryngton of Exton supervisour off this mye testament, to whom I gyff and bequeth an horse. Thes beyryng wytnes Sir David Smyth parson off Saynt George my gostly ffather, Mr Andrew Gannow, John Alen, Sir William Sherman vicar of Maxsey, Sir Wyllam Huddilston and other. There are no signatures or any other markings – no endorsements except those of the Cotton collection. This document is on paper, clearly written. It is either a copy of the will or a draft; we need to compare it against the probate copy to see if there are changes. There are a few deletions which could be the result of miscopying or drafting errors. Loades, following Bindoff, dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen this one is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1536 – i.e. 1537. The will was proven in March 1541/2. The description of the house is the main feature of this will. David Cecil’s first wife Lord Burghley recorded David Cecil’s first wife (his grandmother) as Alice, daughter of John Dyccons of Stamford, and this has been repeated in every pedigree so far. That she was the daughter of Dyccons seems certain although there is no direct evidence. Dyccons asked Cecil to use the proceeds from the Tabard for masses for his soul, and the town council gave to Cecil the waits’ badges which Dyccons as councillor held. But the gild book of St Katherine’s gild (which is strictly contemporary) records that in November 1497, David Cecil and his wife Agnes were admitted to gild (Gonville and Caius MSS 266/670 fol 39d; see Alan Rogers 2011 Act Book of St Katherine’s Gild 1480-1534 Bury St Edmunds : abramis publishers). There is no other known mention of her name; she entered the household of Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and died in that household in 1507 (St John’s College, Cambridge, SJCC D91.19 fols 30, 34) – well before William Cecil was born. We can only assume that Lord Burghley was misinformed. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford Improvement Commission Meeting. Foul Smells in Stamford 1854 Submitted by Chris Hunt Mr English pointed out the great necessity that existed for an inspection of nuisances in the town. Fever was prevalent in some parts, and noxious smells from pigsties and cesspools had a tendency to increase the epidemic. He did not exactly know upon which public body the burden lay for correcting the evil, but it must be apparent to everyone that with fever in the town and cholera in the country, the utmost precaution should be taken to ensure general cleanliness. Mr. Paradise said he was glad the subject had been mentioned, for though the duty pointed out properly came under the direction of the Poor-law Guardians, it could not be too strongly urged before each local Board. There were some places in the town so exceedingly offensive that it was not at all surprising to hear of the prevalence of fever; and those who knew the value to a community of sanitary precautions could not interfere too actively to procure the abatement of nuisances. Mr Horden and the Chairman said it was very desirable that an inspector should be appointed at the present critical time ’ and the Clerk having explained that the duty of instructing and paying an inspector was by the Legislature imposed on the Poor-law Board, it was agreed by several Guardians present to introduce the subject at the Union meeting on the following day. SOURCE STAMFORD MERCURY (FRIDAY) SEPTEMBER 1ST 1854 p3/c2 Note Stamford was not a genteel town with modern Victorian infrastructure in 1854 and was still restricted in its growth by the then Marquess of Exeter. The above report comes from a meeting of the Stamford Improvement Commission held on August 29th 1854. The commissioners present on the day were Messrs. Fysh (chairman), Horden, Wright, Sandall, Paradise, Duncomb, Howes, English, Groves, Baker and Lumby. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Restoration and Rebuilding of Browne's Hospital 1870 David Wallington 2012 A report of 1869 stated: The Hospital buildings are in an advanced state of decay and dilapidation and with the exception of a small part are hardly fit for habitation. There was pressure to completely clear the site which occupies land between Broad Street and North Street and erect new buildings, but local opinion forced a rethink and the current two storey building on Broad Street was retained. James Fowler (known widely as Fowler of Louth) was appointed architect. Fowler was born in Lichfield and trained under Joseph Potter, the Cathedral’s architect. His career spanned the years of the Gothic revival and following his move to Lincolnshire he was active in building or restoring churches, vicarages and public buildings as well as being responsible for designing three alms-houses: Browne’s, Allenby Almhouses in Fotherby and Orme Almhouses in Louth as well as adding buildings to Holy Trinity in Retford and Gospelgate Bedehouses in Louth. It is therefore not surprising that Fowler should turn to Minton for the tiled floor in the passage between the Common Room and Chapel and to Skidmore of Coventry for the gas fittings and art metalwork. Francis Skidmore took over his father’s firm in 1845 and initially repaired church silverware. But he was soon designing church furnishings and was a pioneer in the gas lighting and heating of churches. He exhibited at the 1851 Great Exhibition and was widely used by George Gilbert Scott for the then fashion of metal screens separating chancels from naves. Of these the best known are the screens at Lichfield (still in place), Hereford (now in the V & A) and Salisbury (parts of which are being rediscovered). One of his largest commissions was the huge fleche on the top of the Albert Memorial in London and the wonderfully intricate metal fencing around that memorial. Sadly his obsessiveness with detail led to bankruptcy and because of the loss of his firm’s records he remains an obscure Victorian innovator and entrepreneur. His gas fittings have largely disappeared but we are fortunate that at Browne’s we have three examples of light fittings adapted for electricity: two in the passage and cloisters and one (lamp standard) on the eastern side of the lawn. Inside we have a rare example of two gas fittings still in place on the balcony of the chapel and a part of another fitting in the Confrater’s Room. A lot of the metal work on the doors of the old building and on the accommodation for the residents is clearly also from the Skidmore Manufactory. A tentative examination of Fowler’s work suggests that he turned to Skidmore when working on other projects in the county. It somehow seems fitting that in the 19th Century Browne’s Hospital turned to Coventry for work on the alms-houses as William Browne had developed links with it when developing his wool trading business four hundred years previously. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford the Home Front-1940-Air Raid Precautions Chris Hunt 2017 In the mid 1930’s cities and towns across the country prepared their Civil Defence in case there was another World War. Stamford was no exception and so once war was declared with Germany on September 3rd 1939 preparations for home defence were in an advanced stage. By 1940 trained volunteers were in place with comprehensive plans to deal with air raids which might bring high explosives, incendiary devices and gas attacks to the town. Before the War the German Luftwaffe were preparing maps and aerial photographs of military and strategic sites for a future bombing campaign against Britain. Some were taken by German military intelligence from German civilian and commercial aircraft. Sets were provided to bomber crews to assist them in finding primary and secondary targets. Over 150 English Cities and Towns were covered. Stamford was one of them. There were three electric Air Raid Sirens; at the Town Hall, the Police Station and at Messrs Blackstone & Co.’s works on Ryhall Road. In addition, there were two Steam Air Raid Sirens, one at Messrs Miles & Sons’ timber merchants in the L.M.S Railway station yard and the other at Williamson Cliff Ltd’s brick and tile works on Little Casterton Road. The action warning was a fluctuating or warbling blast on the electric sirens and short sharp blasts by the steam sirens, each of two minutes’ duration. If needed this could be supplemented by wardens’ whistles. Once the raiders were passed there would be a two-minute continuous blast on all sirens. For the presence of gas, hand rattles would be used with hand bells for cancellation of the gas warning. The nerve centre for the whole operation was the Stamford Report Centre which at the start of the War was in the basement at the rear of the Town Hall. Its function was to receive and collate reports from wardens and others to ensure as complete a picture as possible of damage in the event of an air raid on the Town. The centre needed to know the place where the bombs had hit, number of casualties and the damage sustained. The centre would then decide actions needed and co-ordinate the work of the A.R.P. services. The centre was run by an Officer in charge, a Deputy Officer and a number of telephonists; clerks (plotting and records), chart writers, indoor messengers and outdoor messengers. The centre was manned twenty-four-hours a day, although during the week between 9.00am and 5.00pm and on Saturdays between 9.00am and 1.00pm the Town Clerk’s department took over the responsibility. Outside of these hours in the week watches were timed between 8.00am and 9.00am, 5.00pm to 8.00pm, 8.00pm to 11.00pm and 11.00pm to 8.00am. On Saturday: 1.00pm to 5.00pm, 5.00pm to 8.00pm, 8.00pm to 11.00pm and 11.00pm to 8.00am. On Sunday: 8.00am to 10.00am, 10.00am to 1.00pm, 1.00pm to 5.00pm, 5.00pm to 8.00pm, 8.00pm to 11.00pm and 11.00pm to 08.00am. The planning was meticulous. A Light Rescue Party was based around the employees of Messrs E.Ireson & Sons builders of St Paul’s Street and a Heavy Rescue Party based from the yard of Messrs Bowman & Sons builders on Cherry Holt Lane. As for the Public Utilities, repairs to the mains were undertaken by the relevant company; Electricity (Urban Electricity Supply Co), Water (Burghley Estate) and Gas (The Stamford and St Martin’s – Stamford Baron – Gaslight and Coke Company). The Air Raid Wardens in the Town were split into nineteen sectors each when fully staffed would have six wardens with a Senior Warden in charge, each sector covered a specific part of the town. Each sector was allocated to one of four posts; Post No 1 was based in the Town Hall, Post No 2 at the A.R.P. Stores on Empingham Road, Post No 3 at the Police Station on North Street and Post No 4 at the Church Lads’ Club on St Pauls’ Street. Each post had a Head Warden who reported to a Chief Warden who had overall control in the Town and who was assisted by an Officer responsible for Records, Organisation and Training. The number of Special Constables was increased with the Town being split into four sections each with its own headquarters, the north section was based at the Police Station, the south section was based at the Burghley Estate Office, the east section at The Pantiles on St Paul’s Street and the west section based at the Waiting Rooms in Red Lion Square. Each section had a Section Commander and a Section Leader who reported to the Superintendent of the Borough Police Force. In addition to the Stamford Fire Brigade who were based on Scotgate there were two Auxiliary Fire Service Sub-Stations, one at Fancourt’s Garage on St Paul’s Street and the other at Cross’s Garage in St Martin’s. As well as Leading Firemen they had Auxiliary Firemen, Patrol Officers, Telephonists, Messengers and Engineers. There was a great fear that gas would be used against the general public and people were advised how to deal with Tear Gas, Nose Gases, Lung Gases, and Blister Gases. For decontamination the Borough Surveyor’s Department was responsible to cleanse the streets and if Blister Gas was used two squads were created to deal with the injuries. Three Cleansing Stations were set up, one for A.R.P. male personnel on Empingham Road, A.R.P. female personnel at St George’s Home on Ryhall Road, this was also to be used by uninjured members of the public, and the third for injured members of the public was based at the Stamford Infirmary Fever Blocks. Additional casualty services with First Aid Points were provided at the High School in Park Lane and at the St John’s Ambulance Station on East Street and First Aid Parties at the Church Lads Club on St Paul’s Street, Phillip’s Yard on Water Street and at the St John’s Ambulance Station. In addition, there was a Mobile First Aid Post at the Infirmary and St George’s Home was designated as a Civil Defence Hospital. In the event of people being bombed out of their houses the Fane School on Green Lane was designated for the homeless. In addition of there were the Stamford Division of the St John’s Ambulance and the Stamford V.A.D. (The Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) was a voluntary organization providing field nursing services, mainly in hospitals) of the British Red Cross. The Women’s Voluntary Service provided women to carry out clerical work, to deal with the Welfare of Evacuated Children, provide Hospital Supply Workers, Evacuation Receptionists, Storekeepers, Canteen Workers, Trained Nurses, Assistant Nurses, Nursing Auxiliaries, Ambulance Attendants, Ambulance Drivers, Mobile Van Drivers, Car Drivers and First Aid Party Drivers. An important part of the local planning was the provision of Public Air Raid shelters. There were nine in all with a total capacity to take 825 people; they were located at the Scotgate Inn at No 5 Scotgate (100 people), Alderman J.S.Prior’s house at No 2 Broad Street (50 people), Messrs Parrish’s shop at No 45 Broad Street (50 people), Messrs Thomas and Sons at No 11 Broad Street (200 people), Messrs Middleton’s shop at No 1 & 2 St Paul’s Street (50 people), the Old County Club at 27A St Mary’s Street (50 people), Mr Haynes’s house at No 16 All Saints Place (75 people), J.Woods & Son’s shop at No 10 Ironmonger Street (50 people) and the Bull and Swan Inn at No 25 High Street, St Martin’s (200 people). These were sited in the cellars of the above properties. Local builders – Bowman and Sons – making alterations, for instance, to the cellars of the Bull and Swan. Of course other people used the cellars of their own properties for family and friends. In addition, of course there were the Anderson shelters which were given free to householders who earned less than £250 per year and those with higher incomes were charged £7 0s 0d. They were made up from fourteen curved and straight galvanised corrugated steel panels which were bolted together and designed to be semi sunk into the ground. The other type of shelter was the Morrison shelter, officially termed Table (Morrison) Indoor Shelter which had a cage-like construction and came in 359 parts and had three tools supplied with the pack. Those Air Raid Shelters that were made of brick and concrete were dangerous as near-by blasts made them unstable as they had a potential to implode, unlike the Anderson Shelters. Air Raid Shelters were also provided by firms for their staff who were involved in War Work and shops used their cellars for staff and customers alike. The Borough Surveyor was still drawing up plans for public Air Raid Shelters and in August 1940 plans were signed off by local builders. Gas masks were made available from the Town Hall. There were three kinds; a Baby Anti Gas Helmet which was supplied when the baby was born, this was normally exchanged for a small child’s respirator at about 18 months, these were suitable usually until the child got to four or five years of age when it was then replaced with an ordinary civilian respirator. Over a thousand people volunteered to assist in Civil Defence at the start of the war including a large number of women. Stamford physically survived the war virtually unscathed, other than two lone bombers who dropped bombs on the town; the planning was however in place if it had been a different story. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< 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 The Brazenose Site in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2013 The Brazenose name is apocryphally associated with the Stamford Schism in the fourteenth century, when disaffected students and masters migrated to the Lincolnshire town from Oxford. The scholars and their tutors defected from Brasenose Hall and Merton College to escape internecine disputes between northern and southern factions at the university. The first group of dissidents arrived in Stamford in November 1333 and they were followed by further waves in May, June and July 1334 (Peck [a]), to the consternation of their alma mater. They are said to have brought with them a brazen knocker which they affixed to the door of a hall which they occupied in their newly-adopted home. Encouraged by the townsfolk, the Oxford academics read lectures, held debates and taught many of the local youth (Peck [a]). The determined suppression of this neo-university in Stamford by royal decree in 1335 at the behest of the powerful Oxford lobby is well documented. While it is claimed that the peripatetic brazen nose knocker gave its name to the Stamford property as well as to the eponymous college in Oxford (Madan) [1], the only contemporaneous reference to Stamford’s Brazenose was the mention in 1335 of ‘Philip le maniciple atte Brasenose’ (Hartley and Rogers). The Oxford antiquarian Anthony á Wood added the words ‘in Stanford’ (Wood [a]) but this may have been an unfounded assumption as the first mention of a property in Stamford called Brasenose does not occur until 1559, when a building belonging to the Corporation went by this title (Hartley and Rogers). The lease on this property described it as ‘a messuage called Brassen Nose in St. Paul’s [parish], with all houses, barns, stables and other buildings’. Quoting Brian Twyne’s account of his visit to Stamford in 1617, Wood recounted that the building retained its old name of Brasenose. It had ‘a fair refectory therein’ and also ‘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’ (Wood [b]) (Fig.1). Fig.1 Engraving of Brazen-nose College Gate in Peck’s Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, 1727 In 1673, when Brazenose College was in a very poor state of repair, a building lease was given to Anthony Markham instructing him to spend £300 on the property within three years (Hartley and Rogers). The lease also stipulated that he was ‘to affix ye Brazen Nose upon ye court gate next ye street or elsewhere as ye Mayor and Aldermen shall appoint’, which suggests that it had been removed from the gate at some stage. However, Markham paid to be discharged from his lease within the year in order to move to London. In 1687/88, when William Feast was Mayor, the Corporation voted to mortgage Brazen Nose as they had overspent their budget for it. Alderman Richard Burman proposed to make it fit to hold his mayoral feast the following year and was awarded a grant towards ‘flooring such roomes and glaseing soe much of ye windows as hee shall thinke necessary’ (Simpson). However, Burman did not become mayor and the old building was pulled down that same year [2]. According to the Royal Commission survey, Brazenose College appears to have been a large stone building around a courtyard, whose surviving gateway indicated a thirteenth century date (Royal Commission [a]). Architect T G Jackson dated the Brazenose Gateway as no later than about 1260- 70 (Madan) and, indeed, it may date from the first half of the thirteenth century (Royal Commission [b]). Peck informs us that the gateway ‘stood formerly more backward than it does now; but, when pulled down with the college, the corporation, knowing the value of that piece of antiquity, ordered it to be set up again, though not in the very same place where it stood before, yet as near as might be’ (Peck [b]). However, although Peck had been given this information by Alexander Morris, a workman involved in the demolition of the college, Markham’s lease implies that the gate already stood alongside the street and the Royal Commission could find no evidence that it had been rebuilt, thereby raising the possibility that it has remained in-situ. The documental evidence is inconclusive. John Speed’s map of about 1600 (Fig. 2) shows Brasenose College standing well back from the road. In its original form, published in The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine in 1611, the map could be construed as indicating that the gateway is positioned slightly behind the north boundary wall. However, old drawings of the gateway (Fig.1) depict an ornamental string course running above the apex of the arch, and Stukeley's sketch of 1735 (Fig.3) indicates that this feature extended along the wall to the east. Fig.2 John Speed’s map of Stamford, published in 1611. (Brasenose College is located in the upper right quadrant and is indicated by the letter ‘L’. Its entrance gate from St Paul’s Street appears to stand back from the wall) The wall is now lower and the string course no longer exists but, as it is unlikely that the boundary wall was rebuilt along its length, the earlier presence of this decorative horizontal band supports the contention that the gate is probably still in its original position (Hartley [a]). If the gate appears on Speed’s map to be too far to the west along the street compared to its present position, this may be an illusion as the wall was rounded at the junction of St. Paul’s Street and Brazenose Lane in 1923 as part of a road-widening scheme (Till [a]). Fig.3 William Stukeley’s drawing of Brazen-Nose College in 1735 After the medieval property was demolished in 1688, a new building (hereafter referred to as Brazenose Hall) was erected on the Brazenose site using recycled materials from the old college. Brazenose Hall, which was still often called The College (Hartley and Rogers), was evidently completed before the turn of the century as rents were being collected by 1699 at least. It was probably let for several years before being assigned to a charity school in 1704 [3] (Howgrave) and it became the town workhouse in 1739 (Hartley and Rogers). Stukeley’s drawing of this building in 1735 shows that it was erected directly on the west side of the ancient gate (Fig. 3) (Stukeley). While Stukeley drew only the ground floor of the street frontage of the property, engravings of the town by Peter Tillemans in 1719 and by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck in 1743 show its full elevation (Fig. 4). Fig.4 Detail of (a) ‘A Prospect of the Town of Stanford’ by Tillemans (1719) from the frontispiece of Peck’s Antiquarian Annals (Brazen-nose College is the building designated by the number 10); (b) Bucks ‘The South Prospect of Stamford in the County of Lincoln’ (1743) (The Workhouse is indicated by the number 16) Collating these visual clues, Martin Smith created a plausible depiction of the building in the mid- eighteenth century (Fig. 5) (Smith). Fig.5 Brazenose Hall and Gateway, adapted from Stukeley’s drawing by Martin Smith (Reproduced from ‘Stamford Then and Now’ by kind permission of the author) As Knipe’s map shows (Fig. 6), the original Brazenose College was situated on the east side of the current Brazenose site which nowadays comprises part of the Stamford School estate and includes the present Brazenose House. Fig.6 Extract from James A. Knipe’s ‘Plan of the Borough of Stamford and Saint Martins Stamford Baron’, 1833, showing the Brazenose site The Brazenose site lies within two parishes, St. George’s to the west and St Michael’s to the east (Fig. 7). Although the original Brazenose College was situated in the parish of St. Paul, St. Paul’s parish was amalgamated with that of St. George following an Act of Parliament of 1548. Thus, a lease granted in 1578 by the Corporation to Richard Evely, a Stamford grocer, places the ‘messuage called The Brasson Noose’ in St George’s parish (Title deeds and leases [a]). Fig.7 Stamford parish boundaries within the town centre, based on Dewhirst and Nichol’s map, 1839 (Reproduced from The Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford by kind permission of the authors) The modern Brazenose site is highlighted in blue. However, another lease granted to Stamford yeoman Peter Clifford by the Corporation in 1627 refers to a cottage or tenement between Brasennose (tenant William Cammocke) on the west and a tenement in the tenure of William Walton on the east as being in St Paul’s parish (Title deeds and leases [b]), despite St Paul’s having merged with St George’s 79 years earlier. The bipartite nature of St. Michael’s parish can be explained by its smaller isolated eastern moiety being created by the amalgamation in 1556 of the church of Holy Trinity/St. Stephen, which stood just outside St. Paul’s Gate, with the church of St. Michael the Greater on High Street (Churches in Stamford). Entries in both the Stamford Hall Book and the Till Index state that the workhouse was in St. Michael’s parish (Stamford Hall Book; Till [b]). However, Knipe’s map shows the parish boundary passing northwards immediately to the west side of the medieval gateway. Fig.8 Mark indicating the boundary between St.George’s and St. Michael’s parishes (The boundary mark is shown in the left lower quadrant of the photograph) Its position is confirmed by a boundary mark in the form of a St. Andrew’s cross cut into the wall beside the arch (Fig. 8). This would therefore place the workhouse in St. George’s parish rather than St. Michael’s. The detailed layout of the Brazenose site in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, including the number and arrangement of its buildings, is uncertain. However, by the mid-eighteenth century, in addition to the workhouse, there were other residential properties and various outbuildings, including a brew house, coach houses, stables and a dovecote (Till [c]), as well as a large garden. Two of three houses, which were previously situated close to the workhouse, had been pulled down by William Feast. The original Brazenose site, now designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument, expanded in a westerly direction to incorporate Brazenose House with its yard and outbuildings. The Royal Commission gives the date of Brazenose House at 28 St. Paul’s Street as before 1722 (Royal Commission [b]). From 1727 to 1806, the buildings and gardens on the Brazenose site were acquired in stages by successive generations of the Hurst family (Till; Maddison). In 1727, Thomas Hurst (1693-1746) bought a messuage in St. George’s parish, near the spinning school, from Elizabeth Margerum. This comprised the remaining part of a building (lately occupied by Thomas Cade) which had previously been divided into three tenements, including the two pulled down by William Feast, along with one acre of land. Thomas Hurst died in 1746 and in 1752 his wife Elizabeth (1694-1770) sold this property, with its acre of land, brew house, granary and dovecote, to their son James (1727/8-1787). After Elizabeth Lepla died in c.1731, her neighbouring house at 28 St. Paul’s Street (the present Brazenose House) passed through the hands of her sons Mark and Daniel before it was bought (along with other dwellings occupied by Francis Bottomley and Thomas Spink and another untenanted) by James Hurst in 1749. After living there with his mother Elizabeth, James married Philippa Hyde (d. 1793) in 1760, by whom he fathered six children including James Jnr (b.1763–c.1842/1846) [4]. In 1767, he purchased the adjoining plot, between no. 28 and the workhouse, from Stamford Corporation. This consisted of a garden and a cottage which he had been using as a stable. On his death in 1787, Philippa inherited the Brazenose properties and land, and a life interest in a messuage at 35 St. Martins, which James first acquired in 1751 (and had subsequently sold to and bought back from his brother, Rev Thomas Hurst). When Philippa died in 1793, the whole estate passed to their son, James Jnr, who was then living at the house in St. Martins. After William Stukeley re-founded the Brazen Nose Society in 1745, its early meetings were held on the Brazenose site (Gough and Nichols). Although it has been said that the actual venue was Brazenose Hall (Stanley), this seems improbable as the premises were occupied by the workhouse beyond the turn of the nineteenth century. The building gradually fell into disrepair in the late 1700s and regular reports on its poor condition were made to the Town Council (Hartley and Rogers). It was sold by the Corporation to James Hurst at public auction in 1806 (? 1805) (Stamford Hall Book) [5]. Hurst, then a captain in the Royal South Lincoln Militia, also bought an adjoining piece of ground, comprising a garden and barn between St. Paul’s Street and a public lane on the east in St.Michael’s parish, which was offered in separate lot at the same auction (Stamford Hall Book; Till [d]) [6]. The barn had been used as a coach house by William Toon (Till [d]), who was the master of the workhouse. In 1822, Major Hurst, who was still living in St. Martin’s, sold all properties and grounds on the Brazenose site to his only son, Robert Stuart Hurst. These were, firstly, the messuage in St. George’s parish and its adjoining one acre of land, by then converted into yards and gardens with brew house, stables, coach houses, granaries, dovecote and outbuildings; and, secondly, the former workhouse with its yard, garden and outbuildings. Drakard says that it was R H Whitworth who bought the former spinning school cum workhouse in 1822 and promptly pulled it down, while leaving its ancient gateway intact (Drakard [a]). This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that in June 1822 Robert Stuart Hurst took the surname Whitworth by Warrant under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual (Till [e]), becoming R H Hurst Whitworth. The Whitworth name does not appear in street directories or electoral records. Fig.9 Brazenose Gate (2010) Presumably it was when the former workhouse was razed to the ground that the Brazenose name was transferred to the adjacent house at 28 St. Paul’s Street (Hartley and Rogers) and the site of the demolished building became its garden with the Brazenose Gateway built into its front wall (Fig.9). An archaeological evaluation of Stamford school in 1992, and later ground works in 1995, revealed the remains of walls which were thought to have been part of Brazenose College (Lincs to the Past). A stone-lined well shaft was also discovered (see Fig. 10 for location of well). After making extensive alterations to Brazenose House (Royal Commission [b]), Whitworth died in 1831 leaving the estate in equal shares to his three sisters, Sarah Isabella, Augusta and Harriet. In 1832, probably at the time when she married regimental surgeon Titus Berry, Sarah Isabella sold her one third share to her sisters, Augusta and Harriet. After inheriting the remaining half share of the estate on Augusta’s death in 1835, Harriet continued to live in Brazenose House until she died in 1878. In its 1872 edition, Miss Harriet is the only remaining Hurst shown in White’s Directory (White). In a letter to The Stamfordian in 1929, J H Philpot recalled that the Berrys used to spend winter with Miss Hurst in Stamford and that, when they all departed for London in the spring, the house was left in the charge of a childless couple, Mr Bellamy, the butler, and his wife, the housekeeper (Philpot). On Harriet’s death, the Brazenose estate finally passed out of the possession of the Hurst family when Brazenose House, with its associated buildings and grounds, was bought by Thomas Tertius Paget (1807-1892), a Leicester banker and Liberal Party politician, to accommodate his aunt, Mrs Lucy Johnson (1815-1890), widow of Lieutenant-General William Augustus Johnson [7]. When offered for sale in 1878, Brazenose was described as a family residence with stabling, outbuildings (including a saddle room, brewhouse and coach house), extensive grounds, lawn, kitchen garden and small paddock (Fig. 10). Brazenose House was, by then, the only remaining residential property on the site. Fig.10 Plan of Brazenose when put up for auction in 1878 (Reproduced by kind pernission of the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland) When re-advertised in 1890 after Mrs Johnson died, the auction particulars specified that the old knocker of Brasenose College, Oxford would be included in the sale. Brasenose College duly purchased the property and offered it for let after removing the knocker to Oxford. Having earlier taken the name, Brazenose House then took on the educational mantle of its predecessors. After 1890, Miss Collins and Miss Davies ran a girls’ school there from 1891-1898 and were succeeded firstly by the Misses Kellett, (Miss A M and presumably her sister) in 1898 and then by Miss Evelyn Thomas from 1914 until 1927/28. After almost four decades as a girls’ academy, Brazenose House was bought from the Oxford college by Stamford School in 1929. The identity of the Brazenose site is defined by its ancient knocker. Drakard says that the knocker was on the wicker (sic) door of the gateway until about the year 1807 (Drakard [b]), while Blore intimates that it may have been removed a few years later than this (Blore [a]). It was in James Hurst’s possession in 1822 (Drakard [a]) and was later held by Miss Hurst [8] (Burton) who kept it indoors. In his letter to The Stamfordian, Philpot wrote that, in the mid-nineteenth century, the ‘talking knocker’ (referring to the Stamford version of the legend of Roger Bacon) was displayed in a case in Brazenose House (Philpot). Following Mrs Johnson’s death, estate agent Mr Geo. W Johnson, who was handling the sale, removed the knocker from the house to his office in Stamford for security. After purchasing the house, garden and gateway, Brasenose College returned the knocker ceremoniously to Oxford, where it holds pride-of-place above the high table in the College Hall. This outcome would have disappointed Harrod who, in 1785, made the appeal, ‘It is to be hoped that the corporation will never suffer this head to be removed, for it is the most precious antique belonging to the town, and is shewn as such to inquisitive strangers’ (Harrod). In 1951, the Brazenose Gateway was scheduled by the Office of Works as an ancient monument. In 1961, a replica knocker was donated to Stamford School by Brasenose College to commemorate the secession. The old gateway was cleaned and restored and the replacement knocker was hung on its door (Fig.11). Fig.11 Replica Brazenose Knocker on Brazenose Gate in Stamford (2010) Considering the various comings and goings, mysterious name changes, and the renovation and replacement of properties, it is not surprising that some confusion has arisen between the demolished Brazenose Hall and the present Brazenose House which took its name. Both were built between the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The Royal Commission dates the present Brazenose House as early eighteenth century. If Elizabeth Lepla purchased it in 1722 from John Porter, who had been living there since buying it from Priscilla Beavor (Till [f]), presumably it was erected some time before 1720, although it does not feature in Tillemans' painting which was completed in 1719. In saying that Brazenose House was built in 1688 (Deed), Stamford School headmaster, Basil Deed mistook it for Brazenose Hall. Repeating the mistake that Brazenose House dates from c.1688, Pevsner and Harris (Pevsner and Harris) compounded the error by stating that it was rebuilt in 1723. Writing in 1846, Geo. Burton (Burton) made no mention that the former workhouse was pulled down in 1822. Fig.12 Brazenose House (2012) Brazenose House (Fig.12) is now the administrative headquarters of the combined Stamford Endowed Schools. Much of its garden has become a car park but there remain many features, especially its medieval gateway, to remind its staff, students and visitors of the illustrious history of the site. Footnotes 1. The ‘Brazenose’ form is normally used for properties in Stamford and ‘Brasenose’ for those in Oxford. In Stamford, early spellings of the name included Brassen Nose, Brasson Noose, Brasennose and Brazen-nose. Generally, the version given in the text corresponds to that used in the source material. 2. The frequently-given alternative date of 1668 has been attributed to an error originated by Harrod and repeated by many others including Blore, Drakard and Burton (Hartley and Rogers). Possibly some work was carried out on the building in 1668 as in 1688 the Corporation ordered that it be mortgaged on the grounds that more had been spent on it than expected. Referring in his essay to the setting up of the charity school in 1704, Howgrave describes Brazen-Nose College as ‘having been then but lately rebuilt’. It is unlikely that the property was completely rebuilt in 1668 and then pulled down and rebuilt again a mere twenty years later. 3. Blue Coat School was a charity school where poor children of the town and neighbourhood were instructed in religion and taught to read, write and sing psalms, while being employed in spinning (Howgrave). The rebuilt Brazenose was occupied exclusively by the school until about 1739, when half of the building was reclaimed by the Corporation and converted into a parish workhouse. When the rest of the property was also given over to the workhouse (Blore [b]), the stewards of the Charity rented a small house on the north side of St. Paul’s Street (on a site now occupied by Stamford School) for use as a schoolroom, before acquiring a new building on St. Peter’s Hill in 1838 (Davies). Although Blore states that the partial conversion of Brazenose to a workhouse was carried out in or before the year 1734 (Blore [b]), account and vestry books confirm that it was 1738 or 1739 when the parishes of St. Michael and St. John separately agreed that a workhouse was needed for the maintenance of their poor. St. Michael’s received a loan to fit out the workhouse in April 1740. In 1791/2, it was being used by St. Michael’s, St. John’s, St. George’s and All Saints parishes but St. George’s appears to have withdrawn in 1802 (Hartley [b]). It would appear that the building continued to be used for this purpose until at least 1813 (Vestry Books), despite being sold by the Corporation to James Hurst in 1806. Tenants and masters of the workhouse from 1761 until its closure included Mr Simonds (Symonds), William Gray, Henry Knowles, William Kent, Thomas Frisby, Thomas Kirby, Peter Pearson, Basil Farrow (Ferrar), William Toon and Mrs Toon. 4. Street directories indicate that James Hurst died between 1842 and 1846. 5. The Hall Book entry for 29 August 1805 records the Corporation’s decision to sell the workhouse ‘at auction on the twenty eight day of September next to the best bidder’. Annotations confirm that it was sold to James Hurst Esq but do not specify when. Drakard and Burton say that Hurst bought the workhouse in about 1816 (Drakard [b]; Burton), evidently after being promoted to Major in the meantime (Pigot). However, writing in 1813, Blore states that the Corporation had sold the property to James Hurst a few years previously (Blore [a]), which makes it likely that 1806 is the correct date. 6. In 1424, John Whiteside of Stamford gave the garden in the corner plot to John Brown. It previously belonged to Thomas Barker, a local shoemaker. The south boundary of the garden abutted on the town wall east (Rogers), which is consistent with Speed’s map showing the town wall veering inwards to the southeast corner of Brazenose College. The tenement to the west of the garden (on the plot which was later purchased by Thomas Hurst) was owned by John Stockton, a clerk (Rogers). In the early 1800s, the southern portion of the garden was sold by the Corporation to John Boyfield (Till [d]) 7. Deed erroneously described Mrs Johnson as the owner of Brazenose House; she was a tenant. 8. If Burton was referring to Harriet when he described Miss Hurst as James Hurst’s sister, then he was incorrect. Rather she was his daughter and the sister of Robert Stuart Hurst Whitworth. References 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 [a] p.23-4; [b] 100-1 Burton, Geo. Chronology of Stamford. Stamford: Robert Bagley & London: Edwards and Hughes, 1846 p.43 Churches in Stamford. Holy Trinity/ St Stephen. www.stamfordchurches.co.uk/holy-trinity.shtml Accessed 08.03.2012 Davies, Christopher. Stamford Bluecoat School. Stamford Historian 1977; 1: 36-40 Deed, B.L. A History of Stamford School. Cambridge: University Press, 1954 p.28 Drakard, John. The History of Stamford in the County of Lincoln. Stamford: Drakard, 1822 [a] p.609; [b] p.312-3 Gough, Mr. and Nichols, J. Some account of the Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding. In: Nichols, John. Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century. Vol. VI (1). London, 1812 pp.4-5 Harrod, W. The Antiquities of Stamford and St. Martin’s. Vol. 1. Stamford: Harrod, 1785 p.71 Hartley, John [a] Personal communication; [b] ibid 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 Howgrave, Francis. The Antiquities and Present State of Stamford. An Essay of the Ancient and Present State of Stamford. An Account of the Charity School. Stamford, 1726 pp.105-8 Lincs to the Past. Site of Brazenose College, Stamford (Reference name MLI30625). www.lincstothepast.com Accessed 11.12.2011 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.14-20 Maddison, A.R., ed. Lincolnshire Pedigrees (The Publications of The Harleian Society). London, 1903 pp.524-6 Peck, Francis. The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford (Academia tertia Anglicana). London, 1727 [a] XI, iii; [b] XI, vii Pevsner, Nikolaus and Harris, John. Lincolnshire. The Buildings of England. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1964 p.671 Philpot, J.H. Brazenose. Stamfordian 1929; 8(2): 15-7 Pigot and Co.’s National Commercial Directory of Lincolnshire, 1835 Rogers, Alan (ed.). People and Property in Medieval Stamford. Bury St Edmunds: Abramis Academic Publishing, 2012 p.342 (161.14/2) Royal Commission on Historical Monuments England. An Inventory of Historical Monuments. The Town of Stamford. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1977 [a] p.144; [b] pp.149-50 St. Michael’s Parish Vestry Books and Accounts Books 1738-1813 Simpson, Justin. Stamford Parish Registers. (Extracted from the Reliquary Quarterly Journal and Review) p.216 Smith, Martin. Stamford Then and Now. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1992 p.105 Stamford Hall Book IV (1773-1805) p.388 Stanley, S.H.F. Brazenose. Stamfordian 1983; Autumn: 31-35 Stukeley, William. Designs of Stanford’s Antiquitys, 1735. Plate 70; Designs, 75 Till, Eric. Card Index. Museum Collection, now held at Stamford Library, based on photocopies of Stamford’s Hall Books, Vols. I and II (1657-1714) and other documents. Brazenose: [a] 26.6.1923; [b] 25&26.3.1822; [c] 12&13.3.1752; [d] 7&8.5.1806; [e] 26&27.11.1832; [f] 14.4.1722 Title deeds and leases. Stamford Town Hall archives. [a] p.211.21; [b] p.214.57 White, William. History, Gazetteer and Directory of Lincolnshire. Sheffield: William White, 1872 Wood, Anthony a. Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis, 1674. Vol.1. First published in English by John Gutch. Oxford, 1792 [a] p.430; [b] p.432 Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and help of the following: John Smith, former curator of Stamford Museum John Craddock, archivist and former master of Stamford School John S Hartley, former master of Stamford School and member of the Stamford Survey Group Alan Rogers, Honorary Research Fellow in the School of History at the University of Nottingham and member of the Stamford Survey Group The staff and volunteers of Stamford Library, Stamford Town Hall and Spalding Gentlemen’s Society 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 Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company 1832-1911 Chris Hunt 2023 The Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company Limited was one of the earliest English joint stock banks. Founded in 1832, partly as a response to losses and a withdrawal of banking services by other banks in the rural towns around Stamford. Oundle Commercial Bank, founded in 1815 by Messrs Smith and Ridsdale had a market day agency in Stamford, which in 1831 started to hint to their customers that they intended to discontinue their business. Mr Ridsdale, one of the managing partners suggested the establishment of a joint stock bank in conjunction with another retiring banker, Bugg and Co. Thus in 1832, the Stamford and Spalding Bank was established from the businesses of these two private banks, with branches at Stamford, Spalding and Oundle. The main business of the bank in these early years was the agricultural sector and the growing industrial businesses that supported this part of the economy. In 1834, a branch was opened in Boston and the increased workload meant it was decided to divide the general board into three local boards; Stamford, Spalding and Boston. As a result of these changes the bank was re-named the Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company. The bank made a number of acquisitions through the rest of the 19th century. In 1843 they acquired Clarke and Phillips Bank of Leicester who had branches in Oakham and Uppingham; and Goddard and Inkersole of Market Harborough. This was followed by Simpson and White bank in 1849, the Yorke and Company of Oundle and Peterborough in 1861, and the Nottingham Joint Stock Bank at Grantham in 1880. In 1888 they took over the failed bank of Messrs Eland and Eland who had branches in Thrapston and Kettering after offering fifteen shillings in the pound to the Eland’s creditors. Finally in 1891 they acquired the Eaton, Cayley and Banking Company of Stamford. By the end of the 19th century the Bank had twenty-two branches and sixteen agencies across Lincolnshire and adjoining counties and its size attracted the interest of national banking conglomerates and was acquired by Barclay and Co Limited in 1911. Barclay’s branch in Stamford at 46-49 Broad Street being formerly the town’s Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company office. is still with us, but only until April 28th 2023. Chris Hunt January 2023 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Silk Mills, Stamford Advert to Parish Officers WANTED, about TWENTY GIRLS, of the age of nine to twelve, to work at the above business, which is light and healthy. Any parish officers having such children, and desirous of their being so employed, are requested to apply (if by letter, post paid) to Mr Gouger, of Stamford, who will explain the terms upon which they will be taken, and will also see that they are properly clothed, maintained, and instructed. SOURCE DRAKARD’S STAMFORD NEWS (FRIDAY) NOVEMBER 29 TH 1822 p1/c1 Notes Below. Mr Gouger was advertising for young female staff in both Drakard’s Stamford News and the Stamford Mercury through September 1822 to the end of the year. It was not until the passing of the Elementary Education Act in 1870 that education became compulsory for children under thirteen. In 1822 an advert for young girls aged between nine and twelve to work in an industrial environment would not have seen to be out of the ordinary. The Mill was behind No 32 Broad Street and when it closed in 1829 it was reportedly employing 400 women and children, some of which were probably out-workers. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next