the townspeople, millers and the Cecils < Back The Cecil's Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 Dr D.L. Thomas 1982 In this article (first published in the Stamford Historian in 1982) Dr. D. L. Thomas examines the Cecil monopoly on milling in Stamford during the late 16th and early 17th centuries; and looks at the disputes between the townspeople, the Cecil family and other millers in the area. The Cecil Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 Sleepy King’s Mill was, in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a source of bitter disputes between the townspeople, the Cecil family and other millers in the neighbourhood. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth granted her principal secretary, Sir William Cecil, the manor of Stamford, the tolls and profits of the markets in Stamford, together with certain water mills in Stamford called North Mills situated next to the castle.[1] This grant marked an important stage in Cecil’s domination of the town, which had a profound effect on the development of Stamford. [2] The mills acquired by Cecil, referred to as North Mills in the grant, were also known as ‘the queen’s mills’, presumably because they had been granted to the unfortunate Jane Seymour as part of her jointure. By 1627, the property was also being referred to as King’s Mill.[3] Ownership of the mill gave the Cecils a theoretical monopoly of milling in the town. All inhabitants of the town and borough and all tenants of the manor of Stamford were obliged by custom ‘the tyme whereof the memory of man ys not to the contrary’, to grind all their corn and malt at King’s mill.[4] There was another mill in the town called Hudd’s Mill which was owned by the corporation. This can perhaps be characterized as a ‘marginal mill’. It had been built to provide additional grinding capacity in the town at times when King’s Mill was over-burdened. Tenants and inhabitants of Stamford had to obtain the permission of the owner of King’s Mill to take their corn to Hudd’s Mill.[5] This monopoly seems to have been resented by the inhabitants of Stamford and the Cecils had to obtain the support of the Court of Exchequer to enforce it. As far as can be judged – and relevant evidence is somewhat scanty, the people of Stamford were not opposed to the Cecil monopoly because the Cecils were harsh and greedy monopolists. Rather, they were inconvenienced by the monopoly because King’s Mill was too small to deal with all the corn and malt of the inhabitants of Stamford. Rather than wait long periods for their corn and malt to be ground, they used other mills. In 1601, Sir Thomas Cecil, Lord Burghley, brought an action in the Exchequer to defend his monopoly. He claimed that Thomas Robinson, the miller of Ryhall, and Gregory Harlington, the miller of Casterton, kept pack-horses ‘and doe contynuallie fetch, carie and recary the corne and gristes of the Inhabitants of the said towne and borough of Stamford.... to the great losse and hinderaunce of your said orator, his ten(a)ntes and ffermors’. William Salter had built a horse mill in Stamford where he ground his own corn and that of other inhabitants. Various residents of the town had set up querns or hand mills, while others simply refused ‘to grynde their corne and grists att the said water mylnes contrary to auncient usage and custome of the towne’.[6] The occupations of the recalcitrant Stamfordians are revealing. Among those to have set up querns were three innkeepers, George Parysh, Lionel Fetherstone and Jeffrey Harrupp alias Baker. These men presumably wanted querns to grind malt for brewing. William Winckes, a baker, was one who had refused to use Cecil’s mill. The other people against whom Cecil brought action were Nicholas Lambe, a draper, Robert Meadows and Robert Ramsden, mercers, Robert Storer, a carpenter, John Smithson, a cordwainer and two ‘gentlemen’, Reynold Waters and John Caldecote of Ketton. The inhabitants of Stamford made no defence to Cecil’s action, admitting their faults and submitting to the judgement of the court. The fact that the Stamfordians did not make any counter-claim against Cecil is probably an indication that Cecil was not too greedy a monopolist. The Exchequer, although willing to enforce local monopolies, normally took care to ensure that they were administered reasonably. In 1589, the Exchequer had ordered that the tenants and inhabitants of Grantham should grind their corn at the queen’s mill in Grantham, but had ordered the court-leet of Grantham to fine millers if they oppressed any of the tenants.[7] The Exchequer decreed that the defendants and all other inhabitants of Stamford should grind all their corn and grain at Cecil’s mill and ‘shall continewe their suits to the said mylnes called the Queenes mills in such sorte as they have of auncient tyme used and accustomed to doe’.[8] Immediate opposition to this decree seems to have come from Thomas Robinson, miller of Ryhall. In his answer to Cecil’s action, he claimed that if he could not obtain grain from Stamford, his mill ‘will not bee half the weeke sett on worke and thereby fall to great ruine and decaye’. He admitted that he was only the sub-tenant of Ryhall mill; the ultimate owner of the mill was none other than Thomas Cecil. Robinson said that ‘in testymonye of the great reverence and duetie that in all humbleness he acknowledgeth to beare’ to Cecil, he would not, in future, grind any grain from Stamford ‘though to hys great hinderance and losses beinge a very poore mann’.[9] Nine months later, the Exchequer heard that Robinson was still carrying corn from Stamford, William Winckes was still not bringing grain to King’s Mill and the other defendants were still using their querns. The court ordered the arrest of the defendants.[10] The threat of further action seems to have achieved the desired effect; there is no evidence of any further proceedings in this case. A monopoly, however, was still a monopoly and by the reign of Charles I, it was once more under attack. In 1639, William, Earl of Exeter, brought an action in the Exchequer against 234 inhabitants of Stamford. He claimed that they had combined amongst themselves with the purpose of destroying his monopoly. Various of them had sent their corn to be ground at Hudd’s Mill without Exeter’s permission, others had sent their corn outside the town to be ground, while some had set up querns and horsemills within the town. Worse, the banks and sluices at Hudds Mill had been extended, with the result that ‘by often and sudden stoppinge and lettinge downe of the said fludgates and sluces, the said complainant’s said mills lyinge on the same streame above the said hudds mill had been oftentimes held in by back waters and soe choaked therewith that they were not able to goe’. The Stamfordians for the most part fared better than they had done in 1601. They agreed that they were obliged to grind their corn at Exeter’s mill; the court ordered that all querns and horsemills within the town be demolished, while the court also considered taking action to end the problems caused by the developments at Hudd’s Mill. There was, however, one major concession; Exeter was ordered to grind the Stamfordians’ corn within due and reasonable time.[11] A few Stamfordians fared rather better, probably as a result of good legal advice. The Exchequer could compel tenants of Stamford manor and inhabitants of the town to grind their corn at King’s Mill. There were however, a number of tenants of other manors within Stamford; the Exchequer could not compel these people to grind their corn at King’s Mill, because as manorial tenants, they were obliged to grind their corn at the mill belonging to the lord of their manor. Thus it was that certain tenants who held land of the crown’s manor of East Greenwich and the Dutchy of Lancaster’s honour of Bolingbroke were given liberty to grind their corn where they saw fit.[12] This liberty was also granted to tenants of ‘Cuthbert’s Fee’ ; this was a manor which had belonged to St. Leonard’s Priory; curiously enough, it belonged to the Cecil family.[13] Eight tenants of ‘town houses’ belonging to the corporation were also given liberty to grind their corn where they saw fit. The Exchequer’s decree was rigorously enforced. In 1642, Elizabeth, Countess of Exeter, complained that Nicolas Lambe, a brewer, had been grinding malt at his own horse mill. The Exchequer committed Lambe to the Fleet prison until his mill was demolished.[14] Exeter also sought to deal with millers from outside the town. In 1637, he brought an action against William Robinson, tenant of Tinwell mill and Sir Francis Bodenham, tenant of Ryhall mill. Exeter claimed that these men had charged half the normal rate for grinding corn and had carried corn from Stamford to grind at their mills.[15] Bodenham quickly admitted his fault and submitted to Exeter. This was hardly surprising; Bodenham leased Ryhall mill from Exeter and needed Exeter’s support to maintain his monopoly of milling in Ryhall. In 1640, Exeter and Bodenham brought an action against the millers of Tolethorpe, Newstead, Tinwell and Tallington for grinding corn from Ryhall. William Robinson’s case was somewhat different. Tinwell mill belonged to Exeter and had been leased to Robinson in 1631. Robinson had rebuilt the mill, doubling its size from two pairs of stones to four pairs. Exeter claimed that Robinson was grinding corn from Stamford. Worse, by expanding his mill dam, Robinson was depriving King’s Mill of water so ‘that oft tymes the said Earles milles in Stamford cannot grinde for fowre and twentie howers together and usuallie in sumer are hindred from working eighte howers together in everye daie.’ At other times, Robinson would suddenly open his sluice gates ‘whereby the waters gushing downe the streame in great quantities with muche violence doe overflowe and breake the Bankes of the saide Earles mill dames’.[17] Robinson’s defence is very revealing. He denied that he had unlawfully expanded his mill dam and claimed that the expansion of Tinwell mill had been done with the permission of Exeter. He argued that his expansion of Tinwell mill was done for the good of the inhabitants of Stamford. He argued that because of lack of water and because it only had a small dam, King’s Mill could not (especially in summer) grind all the corn of the inhabitants of Stamford.[18] Robinson’s argument illuminates the long dispute between the Cecils and the residents of Stamford. It may well be that local opposition to the Cecil’s monopoly was stimulated because King’s Mill was not large enough to cope with all the grain of the people of Stamford. The Exchequer decree in the case of Exeter against the inhabitants of Stamford had insisted that the millers of King’s Mill grind the corn of the inhabitants of Stamford within due and reasonable time. The decree in the case of Exeter against Robinson, issued a year later on 11th May 1640, went even further. The Exchequer decreed that the inhabitants and residents of Stamford must bring their corn and grain to be ground at King’s Mill ‘provided that it cannot bee ground there within eight and ffortie howers that then they may take it awaye to bee ground elswhere’.[19] This proviso seems to have satisfied all parties and, as far as is known at present, the dispute was ended. Notes Calendar of Patent Rolls 1560-1563, 165-166. On the long-term impact of the Cecils’ control of the town, see J.M. Lee, Modern Stamford in Alan Rogers, ed., The Making of Stamford (Leicester 1965). 91-104 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of Historical Monuments: The Town of Stamford (London 1977), 65. Public Record Office, Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Bills, Answers, etc. (E112/25/287) All references to documents are to records preserved in the Public Record Office. Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Entry Books of Decrees and Orders, Series III (E125/26f.158r). E112/25/287. Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer, Entry Books of Decrees and Orders. Series I (E123/14 f.309r) E123/28 fos.151-152 E112/25/287. E123/28 f.337 E125/26 fos.157-162; the proceedings in the case do not seem to survive On tenture as of the manor of East Greenwich, see Joel Hurstfield, The Greenwich Tenures of the Reign of Edward VI, Law Quarterly Review , LXV (1949), 72-81; such tenants were normally people who held land which had been sold by the crown. Thomas Tanner, Notitia Monastica, ed. by James Naismith (Cambridge, 1737) sub Lincoln LXXII E125/29 fos. 153r, 182v-183v E112/200/192 E112/202/279 E112/200/192 Ibid. And E112/202/283 E125/26 f. 438v A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The King in Stamford Baron Professor Alan Rogers 2012 The following notes are taken from the Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council vol vii pages 227-229 At Collyweston[1] the vth day of August [1541], being present the Duke of Suffolk, the Lord Privey Seale, the Gret Chambrelain of Englande, the Gret Admiral of Englande, the Bisshop of Duresme [Durham], the Tresorer of [the Royal] Household, the Comptroller of Household, the Master of the Horse, the Vice-chambrelain, Sir Thomas Wriothesley Secretary, the Chauncelour of th’Augmentacions. Wheras the King’s Majestie, being at this tyme in his progresse towards his Highnes cyty of York, myndeth to passe thorough his towne of Stamforde, being th’Alderman and th’inhabitaunts therof warned and demaunded of their libertyes, there hath arrisen matyer of contencion touching the same betwene the Shiriff of Northamptonshire, th’Alderman of the said towne and the Bailiff of the libertyes of Peterborough, that is to say, how farre every of the libertyes aforsaid do extende and shuld be used and how every of the said Shirif, Baillif of libertyes and Alderman shall gyve their attendaunce on his Majestie passing through the parishe of St Marten on this side the bridge, standing upon the water of Weylande and as it shulde appere in the county of Northampton, the said Shiriff clayming to cary the white rodde before the King’s Majestie untill the fote of the said bridge on this syde of the said water, alledging that neyther th’Alderman of the towne, nor the Baillif of the libertyes ought to beare any mace or other thing before the King’s Majestie till his Highnes’ arryvall at the said place of the bridge; the Baillif of the libertyes clayming th’office of the said Shiriff within the precincte of the saide libertyes, that is from th’entre into St Martyn’s parishe unto the saide place of the bridge t’apperteyn unto him onely and not to the Shirif of the shire; th’Alderman of the said town clayming of right to mete the King’s Majestie out of the hole towne and before his arryval in the said St Martyn’s parishe, and to cary his mase before his Majestie through the said paryshe of St Martyn’s and so thorough the rest of the towne unto th’ende of the precincte of the saide towne in Lincolnshire. The King’s Majesty and the Lords and others of his Majestie’s Privy Counsail, attending upon his moost royaull personne, considering that the Shirif is his Majestye’s principall and ordynary offycer for the county of Northampton aforsaide and that neyther the Baillif of the libertyes hath yet proved that at tyme heretofore the Baillif for the tyme being hath caryed before the King’s Majesty any rodd, nor yet the saide Alderman can shew any sufficient graunte why he shuld cary the mase before the King’s Majesty from and through the places he claymeth, hath ordeyned and decreed that for this tyme onely the Shirif shall cary before his Majesty the white rodde through the said parishe of St Martens unto the middle of the said bridge and no further; and at the fote of the bridge on th’other side the Alderman to mete his Majestie with his mase and so t’attende upon his Highness unto the furthest precincte of the said towne on the further syde of the water; and the said Baillif of the libertyes for this present to surcease and in no wise to entremedle. Which sayd ordre the King’s Majestie and his Counsail woll and ordeyn shall take place for th’avoyding onely of confusion at this tyme in attendaunce upon his Majesty and in no wise to be taken or interpreted herafter eyther to the prejudice of any of the titles of the said Alderman and Bailliff, which any of them shal be able herafter to shewe or declare for the mayntenaunce of their claymes touching the carying of the said mase or rodd or of any other matyer which they shal herafter alledge, being mayntenable or to th’enlarging of th’authority of the Shiriff otherwise then herafter shalbe determyned. Provided alway that notwithstanding the saide ordre all and every th’inhabitaunts of the said parishe of St Marteyn’s shal be and contynue contributours and pay towards the xvth [fifteenth][2], knyghts and burgesses’ fees[3] and all other paymets, and do all and every such other thing and things with th’Alderman and burgesses of the saide towne of Stamforde as the said inhabitaunts of the said parishe of St Martens have bene used to pay and do heretofore before the making of the said decree, anything in the same conteined to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. [1] at the royal palace there, a favourite place of Henry VII and Henry VIII [2] the royal taxes [3] a tax taken from time to time to pay the expenses of the members of parliament A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back George Longstaff and Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacture in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Brief History of the Clay Pipe industry The manufacture of clay tobacco pipes began in England in the 16th century soon after the introduction of tobacco from North America by Sir Francis Drake . [1] London took the lead in producing pipes, followed by Bristol, and the industry quickly spread throughout the country, so that b y the mid-17th century clay pipe making was a well-established trade nationally. [2] The South West of England, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, was the primary source of the white earthenware clay used throughout the pipe making process. Pipe smoking was common amongst all classes but the fortunes of the industry fluctuated early on in response to opposing factors such as the punitive tobacco tax of 1604 and the granting of a charter to the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers in 1619, [3] as well as to disruption by the English Civil War. [4] After smoking was temporarily supplanted by snuff in fashionable circles in the 18th century, [5] there was a resurgence of pipe making from about 1820. [6] However, a s cigarettes, cigars and wooden pipes subsequently became more popular, the industry went into terminal decline and few clay pipe-making businesses survived into the 20th century. [7] Clay Pipe Making in Stamford Pipe making reached Lincolnshire around 1640 [8] and clay pipes may have been being produced in Stamford by 1665. [9] The earliest trader of pipes in Stamford was Francis Barnewell, a surgeon and tobacconist, but it is unlikely that he made pipes himself, more probably bringing them in from London. [10] The first recorded pipe-maker was William Whitehead who was active in 1673 [11] and worked in the trade for about twenty years. [12] Several other pipe makers followed for short periods. [13] Robert Collington (d.1733), a grocer, imported clay from the Isle of Wight and Thanet [14] for the local pipe makers up to about 1716 [15] and later set up his own pipe-making business.[16] He may have been the only pipe maker working in Stamford at that time. Production of clay tobacco pipes in Stamford occurred mainly during the periods 1650-1745 and 1815-1895. [17] Between these times, because of falling demand, no pipe makers were recorded in the Stamford Hall books, either as freemen or apprentices, from about 1745 until 1817. [18] After Robert Middleton (1789-c.1860) entered the trade in 1817, [19] he and his family became the sole makers of pipes in the town until 1849. [20] His business on North Street was then taken over by George Longstaff. [21] George Longstaff (1815-1875) George Longstaff was the principal clay tobacco pipe-maker in Stamford during the third quarter of the 19th century. Born in 1815 in Spalding, he was the fifth of ten children of Henry Longstaff and his wife Ann (nee Sewell). All five sons became pipe makers, with at least four of them, Thomas Staveley, Charles, George and Sewell becoming masters and William and James being employed by other master pipe makers. George learnt his trade in Spalding before moving to Stamford, where he married Mary Larks (d.1916) at All Saints Church in 1846. They had eight children. [22] On taking control in 1849, George acquired Robert Middleton’s kiln, workshop and two-storey house on North Street. It was the only kiln operating in the town at the time [23] and he was assisted in running the business by his wife Mary and younger brother Sewell (b.1828). Robert Middleton’s youngest son, also called Robert, stayed on and worked for the Longstaffs for several years, most likely until at least 1863. [24] Other former Middleton employees who stayed on included William Henry Taylor and Robert Andrews. [25] Peter Cole and James Lees may also have worked for George Longstaff for a while. [26] It is evident that the business thrived as George submitted plans in 1873 to extend the kiln. [27] Although the Longstaffs remained in the same home, their address changed to 15 and 16 Elm Street after the east end of North Street was renamed East Street in about 1868 and the small lane between East Street and Broad Street became Elm Street. [28] Another of George’s brothers, Willliam (c.1817- bef.1881), was also working as a pipe-maker in Stamford in 1851, but for whom is uncertain. It is not known from where George Longstaff obtained his raw materials but one nearby source of tobacco pipe clay was the extensive pits at Northampton whose black or grey-coloured clay was exported to neighbouring and more distant counties. When such supplies were exhausted, the business may have used Devon clay. [29] Longstaff was not known to have used the brownish-coloured local clay, although Samuel Saunders who was a pipe maker in Stamford Baron in the late 17th and early 18th centuries occasionally did so. [30] George Longstaff marked most of his pipes 'GL' on the sides of the spur [31] and he was the only member of the family to add his personal insignia apart from Thomas Staveley Longstaff who stamped 'LONGSTAFF' upon the bowls of his pipes. [32] After George’s death in 1875, aged 59 years, his widow Mary took over the running of the business until at least 1892. However, by then, the industry was in sharp decline and falling demand forced her to cease manufacture and close down the kiln. [33] Efforts by the Longstaff Bros, probably George and Mary’s sons, A. and Jabez, to revive the business in 1896 proved futile [34] and most pipe-makers had shut down by end of the 19th century. The Longstaff’s brick-built clay pipe kiln was discovered in 1972 during building work on North Street, at the rear of Stamford School. [35] Fate of Clay Pipes The lifespan of clay pipes was relatively short. C onsidering the huge numbers produced, along with their fragility and disposable nature, it is unsurprising that intact or fragmentary examples are regularly found in rubbish dumps, on agricultural land, and in parks and domestic gardens, often carried there in midden waste or soil imported from elsewhere. [36] There have been major finds of clay tobacco pipes at several sites in Stamford, including that of the North Street kiln, the River Welland and Stamford Racecourse. [37] A small number of these pipes were made by George Longstaff. Clay tobacco pipe found in the Stamford area [Photo Nicholas J Sheehan] A print version can be downloaded HERE ------------------------------------------------------ [1] National Pipe Archive. Worcester and Clay Tobacco Pipes. http://www.pipearchive.co.uk› publications [2] Carpenter, Daniel. Clay pipe making. Heritage Crafts . April 26, 2017 [3] Oswald, Adrian. The Evolution and Chronology of English Clay Tobacco Pipes. Archaeological News Letter. Vol 7. No.3. September 1961. p.55 [4] National Pipe Archive [5] Oswald [6] Wells, Peter K. The Pipemakers of Lincolnshire. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.123 [7] Carpenter [8] Wells, p.123 [9] Comrie, A C. The Clay Tobacco Pipe Industry in Stamford. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.187 [10] Comrie, p.187-8 [11] Wells, p.160 [12] Comrie, p.188 [13] Comrie, p.188 [14] Comrie, p.193 [15] Comrie, p.188 [16] Wells, p.161 [17] Comrie, p.187 [18]Comrie, p.188 [19] Comrie, pp.194-5 [20] Comrie, p.188 [21] Wells, p.161 [22] Hammond, Peter. The Longstaff Family of Tobacco Pipemakers. Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 70. Autumn/ Winter 2006. pp.11-14 [23] Comrie, pp.194-6 [24] Comrie, p.195 [25] Comrie, p.197 [26] Comrie, p.199 [27] Wells, p.161 [28] Comrie, p.198 [29] Moore, W R G. Northamptonshire Clay Tobacco-Pipes and Pipemakers. Northampton Museums and Art Gallery, 1980. pp.4-5 [30]Comrie, p.192 [31] Comrie, p.223 [32] Hammond, p.13 [33] Comrie, p.193 [34] Comrie, p.200 [35] Wells, p.161 [36] Comrie, pp.219-21 [37] Comrie, p.201 Previous Next

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

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

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

Hayes & Son Milk Cart BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Hayes and Son - Coach and Wagon Builders Based locally at their works on Scotgate, 1825-1924, partly where the car park is now sited. They produced almost anything that needed a wheel, from carriages for a Maharaja and the British Royal family, to a wheelbarrow for a labourer, and in the 20th century, coach built bodies for motor cars. One of their examples is this three wheeled milk cart owned by John Thomas Tabram from Uppingham and built c.1910, which can be seen at the Rutland Museum in Oakham. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

Willcocks Kitchen Range BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL Joseph William Willcocks Kitchen Range (c.1880 to 1909) Hidden away in the cellar of 62 High Street is this fine Victorian kitchen range. Now long out of use, but still solidly built, below what could be a century of rust. The coal chute from the street above is blocked and access to what would be a museum piece is through a series of cellars. The building above was the old Stamford Mercury offices, originally just in No. 62, and later extended into No. 61, to become a substantial structure where the newspaper was prepared for the print works out the back. Clearly the many re-builds in the 20 th century did not touch the cellar where this kitchen range provided sustenance originally to the Editor and his family who lived “above the shop”. The range has a Joseph Willcocks’ retailer’s cast-iron badge. Joseph William Willcocks’ (1853-1909) business at the top of St. Mary’s Hill was based in 14 St. Mary’s Street where he carried out a successful ironmongery business from the early 1880s until his death in February 1909. At probate he left £10,791 16s 4d, a not untidy sum for the time. Living above the shop, he moved to Broadmead House on Tinwell Road in later life. He was described as an ironmonger, oil, and colourman. Families who were “in trade“, and employed “live in servants”, had the servants working in the cellars and sleeping in the attics; the ground floor was for business, and the first floor was living accommodation for the family. How many other buildings in the centre of town still have such reminders of the past hidden away in their cellars? DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

< Back New Footbridge over the River Welland 1863 Submitted by Chris Hunt The new footbridge across the River Welland, leading from Terra-cotta Lane to the Water Street railway station, was formally opened on Saturday last by Alderman Octavius N. Simpson, chairman of the committee, and attended by the Mayor and other members of the committee. The structure will be found exceedingly convenient to the residents of the eastern half of Stamford, more especially to those residing in St George’s parish. It has a very pretty appearance as viewed from the town bridge, and is quite an ornament to the part of the river which it spans. The structure consists of two stone abutments and one arch of 80 feet span, with a roadway of 6 feet wide, which is carried on Mallet’s buckled plates overlaid with asphalt. The main portion of the bridge is of rolled angle tee and plate iron, cast iron is only used in the bed plates and parapets, and the whole is put together with more than 8,000 rivets, and contains about 7 tons of iron. The stonework has been carried out by Messrs. Roberts, the ironwork by Mr. Cliffe, and the asphalt has been laid by Mr. Reedman, the whole having been done according to the plans and under the superintendence of Mr. Wright, Civil Engineer, Stamford whose plans it will be remembered were selected in competition out of 17 others. The total cost from first to last, including professional charges, will not exceed £400. Source STAMFORD MERCURY (FRIDAY) JULY 10TH 1863 p4/c3 Note. This footbridge was swept away by the floods of July 1880 and was replaced with the present Albert Bridge. Terra-cotta Lane was renamed Albert Road after Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, who died in 1861. The railway station mentioned above is of course the old Stamford and Essendine Railway station whose main building and goods shed still stand at the east end of Water Street. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Are you interested in your family history? Do you have ancestors in or around Stamford? The Stamford Local History Society may be able to help with your research, contact us today. FAMILY HISTORY In conjunction with Stamford Library, volunteers from the Society assist the public in utilising all of the freely available digital platforms to trace their ancestors. Our Workshops The Society hosts weekly family history and research sessions at Stamford Library, making use of online databases and the library’s Local History Collection. These include but are not limited to the following: You can seek advice on searching for Military Records, using Census information from 1841, finding Births, Marriages and Deaths, and delving into past newspaper articles. The workshops take place on Wednesday mornings between 10.30 and 12.30 and are led by officers and committee members of the Society. These sessions are free to both members and non-members and a Lincolnshire Library Card is required.

< 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 Belgian Refugees in Stamford Jean Orpin 2014 This paper was prepared by Jean Orpin as part of the research carried out for the Stamford commemoration of the start of World war I in August 1914. Between late August 1914 and May 1915, 250,000 Belgian Refugees came to Britain. It was the largest influx of political refugees in British history. Today it is almost entirely forgotten. Yet in the early part of the war helping Belgian refugees was a significant part of Stamford’s contribution to the war effort. October 16th 1914 Stamford Mercury An appeal is made by Mr Samuel, President of the Local Government Board for hospitality which is urgently necessary for town and country organisations to provide accommodation on a considerable scale and is asking for places to take 50-100 or more. He also appealed for individuals to offer care. The Belgian refugees tell an awful story of savagery which compelled them to flee from Mekelen, a manufacturing town of 60,000. On Sunday September 27th after German bombardment the whole town lay in ruins. It was then occupied by German soldiers. Refugees fled to Welhem where they stayed for 3 days and nights then that town was invaded and they went to Antwerp and were shipped to Harwich. October 23rd A crowded meeting was held at the Town Hall to consider the maintenance of the refugees attended by the Mayoress, the Marchioness of Exeter, Countess Villiers, the Countess of Ancaster and other prominent residents. The Mayor hoped that everyone would do all they could and they needed to think of expenses. Mrs Edmonds had offered furniture and the Mayor had bought 9 beds and 16 blankets and would make the gift up to £20. The estimated cost of maintenance was 7/- per week. Mr Halliday and Reverend Rogers advised proceeding cautiously as many of Stamford’s own residents might need help before the war was over. Mr Coulson said that the town could be divided into districts and ladies appointed to collect weekly subscriptions. The Roman Catholic priest asked if they could get French refugees as he did not understand Flemish. The Mayor proposed that they proceed with arrangements for 20 and appointed a committee. The Mayor said that gifts of clothing, bedding, furniture and linen were acceptable. Satisfactory arrangements were made with the owner of Eversley House School, Mr R. G. Evans. This commodious dwelling has been furnished for the reception of the refugees. Large quantities of bedding, furniture and household requisites have been given or loaned by the townspeople. The gas company undertook to supply gas free of cost and the Urban Electric Company would supply electric light at 2d a unit instead of 5d. A letter to the Mercury suggested that a quiet reception be made as he had already noticed a lot of schoolchildren peering through the windows of Eversley House as if something in the nature of a freek show was taking place. Villages were participating too. Easton had a house available. Collyweston planned to make a weekly collection. Folkingham had a scheme for entertaining and accommodating a number of refugees. Duddington and Ryhall also offered support. October 30th The Belgian Refugee fund had £389 in the bank. Mrs Pepper of Red Lion Square collected 2040 pennies.Madame Matilde Dorzou was put in charge of Eversley House, which had been fitted up to house about 30 refugees. The first party of 30 including a banker, an accountant and the postmaster of Louvain arrived on the 22nd and was met at the station by the Mayor and Mayoress, the Town Clerk and Reverend Father West, the Honourable Mrs Geoffrey Pearson and Mr Orlando Edmonds. Brakes conveyed the refugees to Eversley House where they were addressed by the Mayor. Ten more refugees arrived on Saturday evening. They attended mass each morning. The light and gas company supplied fuel on special terms. Drs Greenwood and Attenborough were in attendance. November 6th £462 has been paid into the Relief Fund. Another party of refugees were expected and preparations were made at a house on Broad Street, formerly occupied by Mr Hassan which brought the number of refugees up to 60. November 13th Relief Fund £ 493. To avoid difficulties at Eversley House two families left for Manchester. November 20th A whist drive raised £8 10s 6d for the refugees. December 6th A party arrived but soon moved on. Peasant classes arrived to occupy premises at 18 and 19 Broad Street. December 11th Relief fund £689. December 18th It was agreed that empty houses occupied by refugees should not pay rates. T he Invasion of Belgium Germany planned to conquer France quickly. As the border was heavily fortified they planned to avoid the French fortifications by invading neutral Belgium as part of the Schleifflen Plan to capture Paris quickly. This act was seen as a violation of International law as Belgium was a neutral country. Belgian neutrality had been respected in the past and Britain had guaranteed Belgium independence with the Treaty of London in 1839. The invasion took place on August 4th. King Albert, declaring that Belgium was a country not a road, led the Belgian army which resisted the invasion. The first battle in Belgium was at Liege (August 5-16th). This delayed the German progress and gave the British time to send a British Expeditionary Force to Belgium to join the Belgian army. It was small but highly professional. (The British did not have a large army and depended on the Navy as a main line of defence.) Although the Germans were stopped, they had overrun Belgium which remained in their hands for the rest of the war. Over a million refugees fled the country, a quarter a million to England. War Refugee Committees were set up to cope with the refugees.Belgium had a population of 7.5 million. It was a prosperous country with an economy based on trade and industry including a steel industry and coal and iron but imported food. The major ports were Antwerp and Ostend. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next