< Back Eat, Drink and Be Merry – the 1831 Stamford Election John S. Hartley It is almost impossible to provide precise modern equivalents of prices in this earlier period. Nevertheless the Bank of England offers a website which may help a little: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator . The equivalents given below, based on this calculator, are very approximate therefore, and give only a rough guide to the buying power of the pound for goods and services purchased in the UK. However precise or not the figures may be, they provide some sort of basis for comparison between sums of money mentioned in this article. Please note that I have made no attempt to impose apostrophes on the names of these establishments where they should (or might) have been used – the nineteenth century generally did not worry – and I do not! Whether the Blacksmiths Arms belonged to one or many is of no matter here – immaterial, equally, is whether the Arms refer to a heraldic achievement or the hairy arms of a working man! A few years ago, a large number of papers relating to the Stamford election of 1831 appeared, piecemeal, for sale on eBay. While deploring the splitting an archive into individual items, and “cherry-picking” those of apparent greatest interest - this article tries to make the best of a bad job! Among the many items on sale were a few invoices, presented to Charles Tennyson and his supporters by landlords of the public houses where voters had enjoyed his hospitality around the time he became MP for Stamford in May 1831. Individually scarcely more than curiosities, these invoices are a reminder of a time when Britain was in turmoil as those long-used to ruling the country, privileged by birth, wealth and connections, tried to keep a close control of Parliament for the continuing benefit of themselves, their families and their friends. Many of these families, absolutely certain that they alone knew what was best for the country, regarded their reforming opponents with distaste and they were both unwilling and unable to trust them; they regarded their own rule, over past years and recently, as benevolent and far above any self-interest their opponents believed they saw. Even the radical 11th duke of Norfolk who succeeded to the title in 1786 and died in 1815, political friend of Charles James Fox and an early supporter of reform, looked to influence voters in places as far apart as Horsham, Gloucester and Carlisle by his ‘borough-mongering’. Whatever their political leanings, many substantial landowners believed that they were entitled, even called, to use their resources to support candidates to maintain their own interests in Parliament. Foremost amongst such families were the Cecils, no longer just Earls of Exeter but members of the Marquessate since 1801. Their home, Burghley House, lay just outside the borough of Stamford, south of the river Welland, and in another county. They were by far the largest property owners in the town. There were others, however: significant numbers of charities in the town owed their income to the property with which they had been originally endowed. By the start of the nineteenth century many of these charities were controlled by the town council, itself also a considerable property owner and sympathetic – many would have said sycophantic, as some still do, - to the Cecil interest. The councillors themselves, many benefiting directly from Cecil patronage, largely supported the Exeter interest. Probably the most important of the charities under the control of the members of the town council was the town’s Grammar School, endowed at its foundation in the 1530s by William Radcliffe, mayor and leading citizen. This endowment had been strengthened with monastic and chantry property in the next decade. By the later 18th century the earls of Exeter had a positive policy of taking out long, frequently building, leases on both residential and commercial premises at very low rents – again, as many would have said, in collusion with the councillors [1] . In 1809 the annual income of the school from its endowment was about £360 (2024 – perhaps as much as £24,500 [2] ) of which the Exeter estate paid nearly one third for the properties it rented. Its hold on the electorate of the town was strengthened further as it sublet all these leased properties. The Horseshoe , at the heart of the town in Red Lion Square was among a number of licensed premises sub-let in this way. It was one of the eleven public houses (with a further two unidentified establishments) whose invoices, presented to Tennyson for April and May 1831, have recently appeared on eBay [3] . Unlike the many other so-called ‘pocket’ boroughs, Stamford had a large electorate. Voters qualified by paying scot and lot – a parochial tax equated, by the nineteenth century, with the poor rate assessment. On the death of George IV, the former Prince Regent, in 1830 and the accession of William IV, a general election became necessary. Charles Tennyson, (now largely remembered as uncle of the poet) of Bayons Manor at Tealby [4] , some three miles to the east of Market Rasen in the north of Lincolnshire, was invited to stand as Stamford’s reforming candidate [5] . In a lively election he failed to capture either of the two Stamford borough seats. Bayons Manor in 1820, before Charles Tennyson altered it extensively. Lord Thomas Cecil and Col Thomas Chaplin, the Exeter candidates, were elected, but Tennyson was a mere 21 votes behind Chaplin. In 1830 as many as 669 had been entitled to vote; estimates for the 1831 election suggest there were between 770 and 898 legitimate electors. No doubt the overall numbers had been increased by the efforts of Tennyson’s supporting committee – the Blue Committee – as well as the Exeter party - the Red Interest – both anxious to ensure that all qualified were correctly registered as electors. In 1797 it had been observed that Stamford, “always submits the nomination of its members to the Earl of Exeter,” suggesting the long-standing subservience to the family since the last fully contested election in 1734. An election in 1809 had turned out to be something of a farce [6] . It was this domination that Tennyson was looking to overthrow both in 1830 and 1831 [7] . The various means of promoting candidates and eliciting votes sound to modern ears like corruption – as most were, by any standard. Ready cash, food and drink, and support for the electors’ businesses, employment, housing and all kinds of pensions, would bring their reward at election time; fear was, perhaps, the most powerful weapon of all. The Marquess had himself carelessly helped his opponents after the 1830 election by personally coming into the town to help enforce the eviction of those of his tenants who had failed to support both his candidates – whether they had “plumped” – i.e. cast a single vote for Tennyson - or cautiously split their two votes between the Red and Blue candidates. Whether successful in one election or not, many candidates “nursed” their voters until the next time [8] . A consequence of the 1830 election in Stamford was that the supporters of reform presented a petition to the House of Commons claiming interference by the Marquess of Exeter in promoting his candidates during the 1830 election. Their claim failed, “through an omission in a matter of form” and the House, “refused to allow further opportunity for complying” [9] . At this time the countryside around Stamford was in turmoil, as was much of southern England. Agricultural machines were broken, ricks and barns were burned. Similar acts took place, or were threatened, with the aim of seeking redress for low agricultural wages and poor conditions and exploitation by landlords. A particular complaint was over the introduction of threshing machinery. These so-called “Swing” riots had started in August 1830 and continued into 1831. Locally the special constabulary and yeomanry were mobilised, and Sir John Trollope of Casewick in Uffington led a “huge party of mounted men from Stamford into Huntingdonshire.” A straw stack was set alight at Easton-on-the-Hill; at Warmington a machine was destroyed by a riotous assembly. Three rioters were arrested and taken to Oundle where they were successfully held overnight in spite of “the mob who demolished the outer gates of the bridewell-yard and partly stripped the roof of the building……” Such was the political climate leading up to the second of the elections at the start of the 1830s [10] . On the 6th May 1831, after Col Chaplin, once more the second Burghley candidate, had failed by 54 votes to gain the second Stamford seat in House of Commons, the Mercury commented on the breaking of “the long-established influence of the Marquess of Exeter, aided ….... on the present occasion by an immense expenditure of money (said to be not less than £14,000) ….... and by pugilists …… and hired labourers …….”. If such an accusation were accurate – and there seems to be considerable evidence to support it – the period of the election was what the Mercury called later in the same article, “a season of unusual excitement.” Certainly, an outlay approaching a million pounds in a failed attempt to block a rival political interest would indeed seem “unusual”. Unsurprisingly, there were great celebrations in Stamford after Tennyson had successfully contested that second borough seat despite the efforts of the Marquess of Exeter. Subsequently, bills for entertainment at the end of April and much of May were presented to Tennyson by landlords of at least eleven named public houses together with a further two invoices from individuals, perhaps acting on behalf of their landlords. It has been thought interesting, and perhaps worthwhile to append transcripts of all these bills at the end of this article. Together they illustrate something of the celebrations that occurred all over the borough itself, as well as spreading far wider. The invoices were largely addressed to Charles Tennyson Esq, some adding the courtesy of MP after his name; uniquely, John Sharpe Blades addressed his invoice to the ‘Blue Committee’, the colour of reform in Stamford. The invoice from the Salutation , though made out to Tennyson was endorsed with “Mr Beasly,” the name of the Chairman of his election committee which had agreed to meet all the Blue election expenses. There may very well have been other invoices, possibly from other establishments – the bill from the Salutation includes an unpaid earlier invoice dated 6th May, for £18-10-0, presumably mainly for hospitality provided up to that date. Most call for payment to the named landlord making it easy to trace the name of the inn or public house which had provided entertainment for voters and their friends who supported the cause of reform. The bill for the Glaziers Arms carries no landlord’s name but other sources show it was Edward Clipsham, a plumber (and presumably, glazier) who followed his trade while his two maiden sisters actually ran the public house which he had inherited from his mother in 1797. A note, in another hand at the foot of Clipsham’s bill, reads “This ac[coun]t I believe was not obtained by Mr Tennysons servant.” It was initialled, probably by a member of Tennyson’s election committee, suggesting that most of the invoices were systematically gathered for settlement. Two invoices were presented by named individuals, Robert Blake and John Sharpe Blades; they carry no indication of where or for whom they worked, and their names have not been found in any contemporary lists. Blake and Blades did not vote in any of the three elections at the start of the 1830s, suggesting that they did not pay the poor rate and were not property owners (in Stamford, at any rate), and so had no vote there. The landlords of the Black Horse , Horse and Jockey , Glaziers Arms , Chequers, Nags Head , Red Lion, Salutation and Stamford Arms, eight in total, voted exclusively for Tennyson at the 1831 election. In the jargon of the time they had “plumped” for Tennyson, choosing to use just one of their votes for him, and not using the other. Young at The Horseshoe and Abbot at the Roebuck , chose to use both their votes in 1831, splitting their support between Tennyson and Lord Thomas Cecil. It is not surprising therefore to find that all hosted celebrations at their premises at Tennyson’s success at his backers’ expense. Previously, in 1830, Preston of the Horse and Jockey and Saul of the Red Lion , had been rather more cautious and split their votes between the Burghley interest and the reformers but in the later 1832 election they each plumped for Arthur Gregory who had replaced Tennyson as the reforming candidate [11] . Abbott split his votes in both 1830 and 1831 though he also plumped for Gregory in 1832. Young of The Horseshoe , a tenant of the Marquess, had cast both his votes for the Burghley candidates in 1830 and, as keen reformers might have said, ‘prevaricated’ in 1831, returning to the Burghley fold in 1832. Surprisingly John Dickinson of the Stamford Arms and a tenant of a Snowden’s Hospital property administered by the town council, plumped for Tennyson in 1830 and 1831, splitting his votes between Cecil and Gregory in 1832. Clipsham and Saul plumped in all three years for the reforming candidate. And finally, Woodward, whose reforming credentials are perhaps strongest, since the Salutation was a home for independents does not appear to have registered a vote in 1832, having supported Tennyson in the previous two elections. The inn or public house is, according to tradition, the place where freedom to express an opinion is encouraged as people try out their views on their fellows – a place of good fellowship and lively discussion. However, the three elections in Stamford in the early 1830s suggest otherwise. In the urban setting, it would appear, people preferred to gather where they might meet people of similar opinion. The Salutation was a stronghold of members of the original Oddfellows Society in the town. It was also the meeting place of the Royal Society of United Brethren – both friendly societies, each supported by, and supporting, independently-minded tradesmen, craftsmen and townsmen. By contrast, properties in Red Lion Square, including the Horseshoe , had recently been rebuilt by their owner, the Marquess of Exeter. This is the background which makes John Young’s voting pattern rather more understandable – by all reports some Burghley tenants were ejected from their homes after the 1830 election, having failed to vote for Exeter candidates. Young took a considerable risk in splitting his vote in 1831 [12] . In 1833 a rival Oddfellows Society was established in the town: the Loyal Finch Independent Lodge of Oddfellows No 5 , based at Young’s establishment, the Horseshoe . It was named after the second Exeter candidate, successful in the 1832 election, George Finch of Burley on the Hill, near Oakham. On Monday 25th April 1831 both parties had begun their canvass “with a degree of energy unprecedented in Stamford. Some conflicts have occurred on …… the streets, but happily nothing serious has resulted from them.” [13] The next day no less than three letters were sent from the Blue Committee Room in Standwell’s Hotel to Tennyson. Two, signed by both Cecil and Chaplin, made “strong and urgent request” to “forbid the use of Bludgeons.” But the third, from Cecil alone, was far more carefully measured and antagonistic and personal in tone: “I would not wish to charge you with having made a statement wilfully untrue, but ..… you are perfectly mistaken in the idea you appear to entertain ….” And so on, leading ultimately to a challenge which resulted in a duel on Wormwood Scrubs after the election [14] . While the duel broke the law, honour was satisfied, both parties apologised, shook hands and went to a local police station where, on learning that all had been patched up, no charges were brought forward. However, returning to the Election campaign itself, a letter sent from Stamford by Tennyson’s son, George, indicates that the Reds were importing prize fighters and other disreputable characters: “The Marquis of Exeter has engaged a number of prize fighters to break the heads of the Blues. The day before yesterday [ie the Tuesday that the three letters were written by the Cecil and Chaplin] several came down – Oliver, Barker, Whiteheaded Bob, ….. [more]… of these ruffians are despatched from Town today.” [15] On April 28th, during the canvass, the Nags Head provided four gallons of ale for which Tennyson was later billed. The ale was for the musicians who probably formed the band which the Mercury reported met Sir William Ingleby and Mr Pelham, the Lincolnshire reforming candidates, and escorted them through Stamford with blue flags. An extra 1½ gallons, as well as tobacco, were provided at the Red Lion on 2nd May – presumably these musicians paraded with Tennyson supporters throughout the canvass and the poll. A day later Walford at the Nags Head invoiced Tennyson for providing “Post Boys and [Sedan] Chairmen” with some 20 pints of ale. It would seem likely that they had been employed by the “Blue Committee” carrying messages and voters to the Poll and perhaps also the two bottles of sherry and one bottle of port sent to the hustings from the Red Lion ! The Committee would have met their basic charges while also giving them authority to claim a quantity of ale, the amount probably already agreed, at the Nags Head [16] . Voting took place in public, over several days, starting on Saturday 30th April, resuming on Monday 2nd May and ending on Tuesday 3rd May. Stamford printers, following common practice, issued handbills showing the state of the poll at the close of each day’s voting, enabling those interested to keep a close check on how each candidate was doing. When all was over and settled one or more copies of the Poll Book were published showing the results with a list of how each elector had voted [17] . Thus landlords, their agents and anyone else interested could check who each voter (and especially their tenants) had supported. After Tennyson’s success in 1831 large numbers gave themselves over to rejoicing at the final “triumph of Reform” in Stamford. There were various celebrations round the town in “friendly” public houses. The evening chosen for these rejoicings was Tuesday, 17th May. Tennyson had been charged for many gallons of ale during and immediately after the election itself as the missing invoice for £18-10-0, presented on the 6th May by the Salutation , probably indicates. No doubt this substantial sum (£1,550+) had been spent providing entertainment and encouragement to voters during the election itself as well as celebration on some scale, immediately afterwards; all the surviving invoices indicate the provision of considerable quantities of ale – about 250 gallons (or 2,000 pints – 1,135 litres!) - supplied before the 17th May. Organised celebrations in the public houses of the town took place that Tuesday evening: in all more than 187 dinners were served costing Tennyson 2s 6d each then and now about £10.00, perhaps. With the food came more than 175 bowls of punch, each costing double the price of a meal. It is not clear what went into the punch, but the overall price suggests both a potent mixture and a large quantity. In addition, a wide range of spirits was provided – brandy at eight shillings a bottle, rum six shillings and gin four shillings and sixpence - £40, £30 and £22.50 respectively. Sherry, port, and unspecified wines all were to be paid for. One must assume that a rather larger number than just those 187 diners enjoyed Tennyson’s hospitality. During the celebrations on the 17th and over the next ten days a further 350 gallons (2,800 pints, nearly 1,600 litres) of ale were also charged to the Tennyson account! However different social levels demanded different entertainments. A week after the parties for which we have invoices at the pubs there was a dinner and ball celebrating the success of reform candidates in Stamford and elsewhere in Lincolnshire. An advertisement in the Stamford Mercury of 20th May announced a “spacious Booth beautifully fitted up for the occasion”, specially erected in Broad Street where a dinner was to be held. Tickets for this were priced at ten shillings a head [18] . This seems a realistic amount for a celebration dinner including dessert and a bottle of wine – which was included with the ticket. Moreover, it was “hoped that all Gentlemen attending the Dinner will honor Mr. Tennyson by accepting Tickets for the Ball .” So consecutive evenings out, Tuesday and Wednesday 24th and 25th May, for the price of one, to celebrate (and hopefully cement) Stamford’s substantial backing for the reform of Parliament. “Gentlemen intending to dine will please to signify their intention to Mr Hortor, at the Bar of the Tennyson's Arms and George and Angel Hotel , Stamford ….” While “Gentlemen” might have been able to afford the tickets for the grand Dinner and Ball at the booth built in Broad Street, it is quite clear that many of Tennyson’s Stamford supporters could not possibly have afforded a ticket – and probably would not have felt comfortable attending a formal dinner and subsequent ball. The George and Angel had served as Tennyson’s election headquarters in the weeks before the poll – facing straight down St Mary’s Hill, it overlooked the hustings outside the Town Hall where voters declared, for all to hear, for whom they were casting their votes. At present there is no evidence that Hortor presented any invoices to Tennyson who had first been attracted to Stamford at short notice in 1830 by the promise that his election costs would be met by the Committee of supporters. The name of the George and Angel , one of the oldest inns in Stamford, was well known [19] ; the addition of Tennyson’s name and coat of arms took place well before the second election, appearing in print in an advertisement in the Mercury in early March 1831 [20] . Almost next door to the George and Angel , and awkwardly placed behind St Mary’s Church, stood the recently built Stamford Hotel on the site of the former Bull Inn . Sir Gerard Noel of nearby Exton Hall in Rutland had spent a reported £43,000 building this [21] and hoped it would be a centre of resistance to the Burghley influence on voters in Stamford, but his defeat in the 1812 election, after such great expense left his hopes unfulfilled. Known as Standwell’s Hotel after its lessee in 1825, it had become the headquarters in the 1830s of the Burghley candidates – an ironic reversal of fortune and a warning which cannot have been lost on the citizens of Stamford [22] . Arrangements for the entertainment at the “Booth” were planned. On the 23rd May, Robert Saul supplied 12 pints of ale for the “Mutitioners [sic – presumably ‘musicians’ was intended] at Orchestra,” Clearly, an orchestra had been gathered and were preparing for the ball. The Stamford Mercury of the 27th May reports on both dinner and ball. Attending were not only all the newly elected reforming MPs for Lincolnshire and Rutland, Sir William Ingilby and Sir Gerard Noel, but “General Johnson [23] , Major Handley [24] and numerous parties of gentlemen from Boston, Spalding, Holbeach, Deeping, Bourn and other towns of this and the neighbouring counties.” The Mercury report makes it clear that the dinner itself was a male only occasion: “…. The gentlemen were honoured after dinner with the presence of Lady Tennyson and her daughters, Lady Ingilby and a large party of ladies of the town and neighbourhood.” For them “accommodation had been provided that they might hear the speeches.” The Mercury offers no indication of the content, quality or reception of the speeches, simply stating, “The day’s proceedings, it may be truly said, passed off with the most admirable effect.” The ball “for which so ardent anticipation had been felt by an immense class of individuals” took place following evening. Again, the marquee in Broad Street – always referred to as a “booth” – 130 feet by 40 feet (40m x 12m) was used, though the number attending was far greater than for the dinner. To provide the additional accommodation the ”spacious portico of the market” [25] was fitted up for dancing; the “numerous intervening shambles of the butchery, each of which was converted into a receptacle for refreshments, …… was presided over by ladies of a committee who kindly devoted themselves to the service.” Flowers and evergreen shrubs were everywhere, and the lighting was “beautifully” done with “variegated light formed into the most magnificent devices” in the booth. “Order and harmony” reigned throughout the evening and during a break in the dancing, Tennyson was presented with a silver vase, costing 100 guineas (today perhaps £9,000) which his supporters had collected to commemorate his success. Inevitably speeches followed. Most remarkable about the Mercury account of the ball are the words “the immense number of five thousand persons [26] were entertained in this magic scene…………..” Scarcely less remarkable is the way this sentence continues, “between eight o’clock on Wednesday evening and seven o’clock on the following morning.” Some celebration! The supporters of the Red party had their own celebration – and the Mercury duly recorded this also. They reported that on Tuesday 31st May supporters were “entertained with dinner at 30 of the inns and public houses of Stamford. About 700 persons partook of this festivity, which is estimated to have cost about £1 a man, ” [my italics!] . According to the Poll Book just 382 voters had cast at least one of their votes for the Exeter candidates. So it would appear that this celebration, like Tennyson’s, was attended by many who were not qualified to vote in the Stamford constituency. The Mercury’s report is short and betrays the paper’s political bias, reflecting its owner’s bias, in favour of reform; the comment on the cost of the Red celebration – perhaps £60,000 today – was a reminder to its readers of those reports a month earlier about how the Cecils had tried to manage the electors of the borough. Tennyson’s Dinner and Ball provided opportunities for the public houses in Broad Street to make further profit out of his success. On the night of the Ball the Salutation supplied “Brandy for [the] Booth” as well as having a “man employed in Making the Tea”, and a coal porter. Afterwards, having perhaps been responsible for fitting out the large marquee used for the dinner and ball, Saul claimed for “Things not returned from the Booth: 1 chair, 9 mugs, 1 quart jug and one half pint pewter” valuing the items at the equivalent of about £40 today. At the Red Lion there were losses of glasses and mugs over the election period to a similar amount. The Nags Head claimed from Tennyson the cost of providing “the lamp trimmers Ale &c” while the illuminations were kept bright. They also provided “tin cans, taps and pail,” presumably for the barrels of ale brought to the marquee. An unspecified number of waiters tried to ensure everything ran smoothly at the Nags Head . Nevertheless, unsurprisingly, amid all the celebrations accidents occurred. The breakages of glass at the Nags Head, Red Lion and Salutation cost the equivalent of at least £50 today. All the effort and expense, revealed in these bills, together with the extreme celebrations in the Booth made no direct difference whatsoever to Stamford in the short term. Tennyson and his fellow MP reformers brought the bill proposing reform of the electoral system to Parliament. Accepted by the Commons but rejected by the House of Lords – largely the people who benefited most from the existing franchise – widespread riots ensued; Bristol, Nottingham and Derby, among many other places, suffered severely. Faced with chaos, and the royal threat of the creation of enough peers to pass a Reform Bill, the Lords capitulated and the Reform Act received royal assent in the June of 1832. Nationally, this enlarged the franchise, particularly in the ‘new’ industrial towns of the North and, importantly, showed the way political change might be achieved. In Stamford the borough franchise was extended, and the constituency enlarged to include properties south of the Welland. Many inhabitants of St Martin’s became new electors in this enlarged Stamford constituency. The Exeter interest, owning the majority of the newly enfranchised properties in St Martin’s, was strengthened overwhelmingly as a result. Before the 1832 election, when the new electoral register was to be used, Tennyson left Stamford to take the far safer seat of Lambeth which he held for the next twenty years. Many of his supporters were upset, unsurprisingly, believing he had let them down. It was another 40 years, until the arrival of the secret ballot in 1872, that it became possible for Stamford electors to vote freely, without any fear of the consequences. Bayons Manor after it had been enlarged by Charles Tennyson [1] Blore’s Stanford Charities published in 1813 was a critical investigation into management of the so-called municipal charities. It anticipates many of the findings of the Charity Commissioners presented to Parliament in 1837, which was summarised in a lengthy Appendix by George Burton, Chronology of Stamford , Stamford, 1846. [2] See introduction, above. [3] See Appendix for a transcription of these invoices [4] In an ‘ongoing fit of medievalism’ in 1835, Tennyson renamed his inherited home, Bacons , as the far grander Bayons Manor – hopefully revealing a connection with Bayeaux. He also tacked “d’Eyncourt” to his surname. [5] Tennyson was already known as a reformer – he had been a MP for Grimsby from 1818-26 and subsequently Bletchingdon in Surrey until 1831. See History of Parliament , relevant entries [6] It was held just a fortnight after the duke of Ancaster had died with the result that Gen. Bertie, one of the two Stamford MPs and a friend of the Burghley interest, was raised to the peerage as the Earl of Lindsey. As a member of the House of Lords, he could no longer represent Stamford in the Commons, so a new MP was required. A rank outsider, said to have been a traveller through the town, polled nearly one third of the total votes. [7] See, The House of Commons, 1820–1832, History of Parliament Trust, ed. D. R. Fisher, Vol 3 sub Stamford. Also, History of the Original Constitution of Parliaments, T.H.B. Oldfield, London 1797, p.428. [8] In Stamford the Town Council Minute Book as far back as 1704 had recorded that the two most recent mayors had each received £100, perhaps equivalent to £20,000 today, from Mr Cecil and Mr Bertie, “to be distributed among the voaters of this town”. And this may possibly have been regarded as an annual ‘donation’! [9] Stamford Mercury 3 Dec 1830 [10] See the article, The Agricultural Labourers' Standard of Living in Lincolnshire, 1790-1840: Social Protest and Public Order, by T.L. Richardson in Agricultural History Review, 4I , x, pp 1-19 for a much fuller discussion of the local background to the 1831 election. [11] See elsewhere on this site, “Anonymous Abuse - 1830s style” about Tennyson’s decision not to stand for Stamford again in the 1832 election. [12] In 1847, after a debate about interference in the election in Stamford in that year, the House of Commons passed a motion (by one vote – 178 to 177!) to appoint a Select Committee to “inquire into the allegations ……. complaining of the interference of the Marquess of Exeter,” in the 1847 “and former elections.” The Select Committee Report on the Stamford Election of 1847 , (Parliamentary Papers, HC 532, 1847-1848, v.14) is highly critical of the tactics used by the Marquess and his agents, not least the ejection of tenants as a result of their not voting for their landlord’s candidates. [13] Stamford Mercury , Friday 29th April 1831, p.3 col.1 [14] The three letters are to be found in Lincolnshire Archives, 2Td’EH26/1, 2 & 4. Reports of the duel are to be found in the Stamford Mercury 23 June 1831, and many national newspapers, as well as local papers throughout the country. Drakard’s Stamford News , as might be expected from such a radical source, carries in great detail the names and background of many of the Special Constables brought in by the Exeter family, as well as full details of the origins of the duel – DSN 24 June 1831. [15] Lincolnshire Archives Td’E H/109/32. Drakard News carries a list of these “ruffians” (many former policemen) DSN 24 June 1831 [16] It is important to remember that messages had to be carried, as did people, and the carriers formed an important part of the structure of any pre-twentieth century community. [17] Sometimes, usually when a poll was very close, the “State of the Parties” was issued more frequently than daily. Poll books, often contain a running summary of daily happenings, giving the opportunity for each side subsequently to interpret events as they saw fit. [18] 10 shillings was half of one pound, so a modern equivalent might be about £50. [19] A property in St Mary’s parish called the Angel is recorded from the early 14th century (People & Property in Medieval Stamford No.758.28) and it appears to have been an inn by the late 15th. Early in the Georgian period the name was expanded, first to the Angel and George and then to the George and Angel . [20] On 11 March 1831 a new name, Tennyson’s Arms, replaced George and Angel . A month earlier still, on 10 February, William and Mary Everard had named their son Charles Tennyson at his baptism! (Stamford St John - Registers). [21] Chronology of Stamford , George Burton (Stamford & London 1846) p.194 – at least £4 million today [22] The riots occasioned by the close proximity of the two election headquarters form yet another strand to the story of the Stamford elections of the 1830s. Ultimately the ratepayers of the town had to make good the costs of the damage to the George and Angel , avoiding a law suit threatened by Hortor: LAO Stamford St Michael’s Vestry Book 20 June 1833. [23] William Augustus Johnson, of Witham on the Hill was a former MP for Boston, and later for Oldham, and a leading figure in South Lincolnshire after 1815. [24] Henry Handley, of Sleaford was MP for the Southern Division of Lincolnshire 1832-1841 [25] Now the Town Library, originally built to accommodate the Butchers’ shambles. [26] Italics in original report. In 1831 Stamford’s population was 5,837 according to the census of that year. There is an appendix to this article which can be viewed by clicking the link below. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford in 1868 Chris Hunt 2018 1868. J.Clapton. Esq; Mayor. February 25th, owing to the failure of his health, the Earl of Derby resigned the premiership, and on the 28th, Mr Disraeli became Prime Minister. In March, the entrance lodge to Burghley High Park, near the race course, was commenced. May 4th, Viscount Ingestre (son of the Earl of Shrewsbury) elected Member of Parliament for Stamford, vice Viscount Cranbourne elevated to the peerage by the death of his father, the Marquis of Salisbury. On the 8th a spirited race was rowed on the river Welland between Stamford Bridge and the Railway Bridge, between the crews of an outrigger and a four-oared gig, and attracted crowds of spectators. The colours were light blue and white. The “light blues” won by a length. On the 23rd June, William Unwin Heygate was elected Member of Parliament, in place of Viscount Ingestre, elevated to the peerage. July 31st, close of the last Parliament elected under the Reform Bill of 1832. August 6th, an Anglo-Saxon cinerary urn was found on the Essendine Railway in the parish of St George. September 18th, a steamer on board which was Lord Burghley, eldest son of the Marquis of Exeter, was wrecked in Queen Charlotte’s Sound, New Zealand. No lives lost. October 14th, about 5.00am, a very destructive fire broke out at Mr Joseph Phillips’ brewery, in Water-street, and was not got under control for some hours, during which time it destroyed the malting-rooms (which contained several hundred quarters of malt) and the ale stores. The damage was very heavy. The town engines were present and also one from Burghley, one from the works of Messrs. Ashby and Jeffery, and Mr Blashfield’s L’Extincteur. On the 17th, a stone coffin, of the Roman period, containing two skeletons and fragments of pottery, a bone pin, &c., was found on the farm of Mrs Gilchrist, between Stamford and Tinwell, about half a mile from Ermine-street. November 11th, the London Gazette contained a proclamation for dissolving the seventh parliament of Queen Victoria. The Second Reform Bill having deprived the borough of Stamford of one of its members, Sir John Hay was on the 16th returned as Stamford’s only representative in Parliament. Mr Andrew Gray, a shipping agent from London, was proposed and seconded; he made a speech and then his candidature was withdrawn. On the 2nd of December, the Disraeli ministry resigned, on the account of the result of the election. Showing a majority of one hundred and twenty-one to the opposition. On the 4th, Mr Gladstone was commanded to form a ministry, which was sworn into office on the 9th. Source:- The Annals of Stamford 1837-1887 by Arthur J. Waterfield printed and published in 1867 by Haynes & Son, 51 High Street, Stamford. Note: - 1868 was the year of parliamentary elections in Stamford. Two by-elections in May and June followed by a General Election in November when the borough returned for the first time just one Member of Parliament. The reduction from two being as a result of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1867. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< 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 V Bomber Crash at Barnack Chris Hunt 2017 HANDLEY PAGE VICTOR B.2 BOMBER No XM714 On the night of March 20th 1963 a Handley Page Victor B.2 Bomber No XM714 of 100 Squadron took off from Wittering on a training flight. It crashed east north-east of Wittering in the Parish of Barnack and of the crew of six only one person ejected and survived. The plane was a write off. The plane stalled after take-off and spun into the ground. A fire warning was indicated for the No.2 engine, this occurred at about 800 feet. During the fire drill the airspeed was allowed to drop and the aircraft began to judder violently. It then flipped over, entered a spin at between 4,000 and 5,000 feet and crashed. The co-pilot ejected and survived with compression fractures but the rest of the crew were killed. The fire warning was found to be false. The co- pilot – Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson remained in the RAF and retired in 1993 with the rank of Air Chief Marshall. There were two squadrons of Victor B.2 Bombers at Wittering during the 1960’s. 100 Squadron from May 1962 to September 1968 and 139 (Jamaica) Squadron from February 1962 to December 1968, they were both part of the Quick Reaction Alert force of the RAF. Two nuclear armed aircraft were permanently on 15 minutes readiness to take off. They were parked within 300 ft of the westerly runway threshold and in times of higher tension, four bombers could be stationed beside the runway. If the aircraft were manned they could all be airborne within 30 seconds, with an incoming missile warning from RAF Fylingdales of only four minutes before impact this ensured if the country came under attack, the bombers would be scrambled and be able to retaliate. Each plane carried an Avro Blue Steel Missile, this was a British air-launched, rocket- propelled thermonuclear stand-off missile and was the primary British nuclear deterrent weapon until the introduction of the Polaris missile armed nuclear submarine fleet. Basically. the missile was a pilotless, winged aircraft. It was powered by a rocket engine, burning a combination of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene. Fuelling the missile before launch took nearly half an hour, and was quite hazardous. On launch the rocket engine's first chamber would power the missile along a predetermined course at around Mach 1.5 and then once close to the target, the second chamber of the engine would accelerate the missile to Mach 3. Over the target the engine would cut out and the missile would free-fall before detonating its 1.1 megaton warhead as an air burst weapon. The crash occurred about 100 yards north of the Bainton Road reaching almost to the village cemetery. The area was soon cordoned off with RAF Police and crash teams from Wittering; civilian police were also on hand. Fire brigades from Stamford and Peterborough also attended the scene. It was reported in the press that the RAF armourers on hand were there to deal with Very lights. Trees were set on fire and for a time the whole village was covered in a black cloud as a result of the burning fuel. Local residents were interviewed by the Stamford Mercury reporters who spoke of debris from the crash as near as fifty yards to Station Farm. The cockpit canopy landed the far side of Pond Farm falling through the roof of a stone outbuilding and No 10 Bainton Road was in direct line with the crash. A Barnack villager reported that the sound the plane was different to normal and was gliding in when it hit the ground. To some there was a renewed fear of further accidents and the continuation of night flying did nothing to quell those fears. At the inquest which was held in Peterborough on May 16th 1963 the sole surviving airman (Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson) informed the inquest jury that No 2 Engine Warning light came on at about 800 feet and they commenced the normal fire drill. They could not see the engine in question so the only indication of the fire was the warning light. The Base was informed of the incident and the crew were warned to check their parachutes. At this stage the aircraft suffered severe buffeting, ‘an intense vibration caused by aero-dynamic reasons or by mechanical failure in the engine’. Shortly after this the nose of the plane reared up and it went into a spin. The Captain gave the order ‘Get Out, Get Out’ and the Flight Lieutenant ejected at about 2,000 feet, before leaving the plane he heard someone at the rear say I can’t move. The design of the plane meant that although the pilot and co-pilot had ejector seats the rest of the crew had to bail out. This was not an easy procedure due to the restrictive nature of the interior of the plane and the danger of being caught by an engine when bailing out. A witness on the ground stated that there was no fire on board the plane prior to the crash. Three of the deceased were buried with full military honours in Wittering Cemetery. Flight Lieutenant Jackson’s stated at the inquest that:- “I think the captain very courageously stayed at the controls when he could have used his ejector seat, because of the knowledge that the rest of the crew could not get out.” The question of course is whether on the night of the accident the plane was carrying a Blue Steel Missile with a nuclear warhead attached? Considering the high status level at the time it was the norm for aircraft in the air to be carrying a weapon. The missile’s warhead was primed in-flight so although in a crash scenario nuclear material could be released into the environment; there was little or no likelihood of a nuclear explosion. Of course it could have really been a training exercise carrying a dummy missile on what was a relatively new plane. The pilot - Flight Lieutenant Alexander Galbraith - heroically stayed with the plane making the ultimate sacrifice and saving numerous lives on the ground and the village of Barnack. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Melbourn's Tied Houses 1869-1971 Chris Hunt 2024 The lease of the All Saints’ Steam Brewery on All Saints’ Street in Stamford was acquired by Herbert Wells Melbourn in October 1869; it was previously held by Elmer Brown. Herbert was the son of a prosperous Ingham farmer (Newell Wells Melbourn) and was only twenty-one-years-old when he obtained the business. The brewery was built in 1825 by William Brown Edwards, a former partner in the brewing firm of Harper, Hunt and Edwards, in whose family it remained until 1857. The lease was then acquired by Frederick George Phillips who held it until October 1859 when it passed into the control of Elmer Brown. Between 1869 and 1872 the brewery was managed by Herbert under the title of H.W. Melbourn & Co. and it was not until April 1872 that Melbourn Brothers was formed by Herbert and his brother George Toynee. George and a third brother, Newell, carried on the family tradition of farming in the Lincoln area. The firm remained under this title until it was acquired by the Earls of Liverpool and Gainsborough in 1971. In 1876 the brewery was completely re-equipped and production was increased; previously annual production was around 3,500 barrels per year. By 1900 this had increased to 9,000 barrels and so by the turn of the century production was around 300,000 gallons, close to 2.5 million pints per year. This was possible through investments in depots at Lincoln, Grantham, Leicester and Holbeach, the acquisition of tied houses and of course increases in the free trade. It must be remembered that there was a great deal of competition in Stamford, with Hunt Brothers on Water Street, Joseph Phillips also on Water Street, and Lowe’s which became Lowe, Son & Cobbold, on Broad Street/North Street. And, of course, there were a number of home brew pubs or, as we would call them today, micro-breweries. In 1872 the brewery had only fifteen tied houses, of which seven were in Stamford: the Hit or Miss. The Old Chequers, the Parting Pot which on being rebuilt in 1887 became the Victoria, Rolt’s Arms, Royal Oak, Star and Garter and the White Swan. There were four inns close to the brewery in the surrounding villages: Collyweston – the Slater’s Arms, Easton-on-the-Hill – the Carpenters Arms, Nassington – another Carpenters Arms, and the Foundry Arms at Ryhall, plus inns at Brigstock, Lincoln, Sleaford, and Weldon. The Hit or Miss on Foundry Road had been tied to the All Saints’ Brewery since 1860 when Elmer Brown held the lease. However, Melbourns didn't acquire the pub until March 1870. Another Elmer Brown pub was the Rolt’s Arms, part of Corporation Buildings on Scotgate. This pub was named after the unsuccessful anti-Burghley parliamentary candidate in the 1847 election and was leased from Stamford Borough Council and ceased trading in 1908. The Old Chequers had been a William Brown Edwards tied house since 1839 and remained so through the time of Elmer Brown; the lease was allowed to lapse in 1887. The exact financial arrangements between Elmer Brown and Herbert Wells Melbourn are not known. Obviously, the brewery lease was transferred in 1869 but the exact arrangements around the public houses are uncertain. By 1884 the number of tied houses had grown to thirty-one, with inns in Lincoln, Grantham and Sleaford and their surrounding villages and hamlets. During this period two leases had been allowed to lapse, the Royal Oak and the White Swan in Stamford, and of the additional eighteen houses thirteen were acquired on lease and the remaining five were purchased. In 1880 W. C. Crowson, brewer of Oakham, retired and from the subsequent sale the Wheatsheaf at Oakham and the New Inn at Preston in Rutland were purchased. The freeholds of the Crown at Dyke, the Corner Inn at Collyweston, and the Royal Oak at Heckington were also acquired. With the agricultural depressions of the 1880s and 1890s and the improvements in farming technology there was a movement of rural labour from the villages to the ever-industrialising market towns and, as a result, village tied houses were less profitable in comparison with those in cities such as Lincoln or market towns like Stamford. It was not uncommon for the licensee to carry on another trade from their property to make ends meet. This applied moreso in villages but also applied in some of the smaller town pubs. As a result, although there was no marked increase or decrease in the number of tied houses, new ones were acquired in towns, whilst some of the more rural inns were sold or their leases allowed to lapse. When properties with an alcohol licence became available for either purchase or lease there was often a degree of competition by brewery companies to acquire them as tied houses. Melbourns failed in 1880 to purchase the White Swan in Stamford when it came up at auction, having previously held the pub on lease. However, the Pineapple on High Street, Stamford was acquired in 1890. So, every opportunity was followed to acquire inns on lease and it should not be a surprise that some belonged to the Burghley Estate and that these were often attached to the overriding lease that the company held for the Brewery. For instance, in 1897 they acquired what had formerly been known as Wheatley’s Vaults on Ironmonger Street, which they renamed Melbourn’s Vaults. Then in April 1899 the Bull & Swan Inn in St Martin’s became tied to the brewery, followed in 1911 by the Boat & Railway Inn at the bottom of St Mary’s Hill, formerly a Hunt Brothers’ pub, which remained with the brewery until its closure in 1962. Not all of these could even mildly be called economically-viable businesses. One was the Exeters Arms on Water Street, situated where Saxon Court now stands. It was a Melbourn’s tied house only from 1923 to 1932. It had been a home-brew pub with one mash tun and one fermenting vessel with a capacity of eight barrels from at least 1880 until it ceased brewing in late 1920/early 1921. In 1931 the town’s magistrates were actively reducing the number of licensed houses in the town. The Exeters Arms was one of them and compensation of £600 was finally agreed; the Burghley Estate received £165, Melbourns £375, and the tenant £60. It was not until after Herbert’s death in January 1927 that any noticeable changes were made in the firm’s policy towards tied houses. By this date the four depots had closed and deliveries were made by motor lorry and less use made of the railway network. The firm was now in the hands of trustees who initiated a cautious expansion of the business through the acquisition of freehold properties. The Boot and Shoe at South Luffenham in 1927 and the Plough at Great Casterton in 1931, which had previously been leasehold properties, were bought. Other freehold acquisitions were the Brewery Inn in Stamford in 1929, the Crown Inn at Great Casterton in 1931, and the Five Bells at Morton and the Six Bells at the Witham-on-the-Hill in the same year. On purchasing the Brewery Inn, the trustees considered retaining the wooden brewhouse on site for emergencies, which although not used since 1923 was still equipped with a mash tun and a fermenting vessel(s). Sense prevailed and the brewhouse was demolished in 1930. The Royal Oak at Heckington was completely rebuilt during this period. Its location on the A17 with its large car park made an ideal stopping point for travellers on their way to and from the coast. During the Second World War the Stamford Hotel was requisitioned by the Air Ministry and the Stamford Hotel Tap was leased to Melbourn’s from 1942 to 1948 before reverting to a free house. In 1947 Herbert’s widow, Fanny Elizabeth Melbourn, died and the firm passed into the hands of Herbert’s great-nephew and great-nieces. Under this new management further tied houses were obtained: The Plough at Sleaford (1947), The Black Horse at Grimsthorpe (1954), the Five Bells at Edenham (1955), and the Red Lion at Haconby (1958). All bar the Black Horse were acquired as freehold properties. The 1960s brought rationalisation and consolidation. A number of uneconomic inns were sold or the leases allowed to lapse. Two pubs were sold to developers, the Plough at Sleaford in 1958 and the Pineapple at Stamford in 1961. The Pineapple had been held from 1890 on lease from the Newcomb Estate and was subsequently bought in 1920 for £1,000. The finance from such sales was used to purchase new outlets, to improve existing properties, and to acquire adjoining sites to some inns with a view to future developments and in at least one case to enlarge the inn’s car park. The sale of the Pineapple had raised £10,000. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the Stamford Brewster magistrates were again demanding a reduction in the number of licensed houses in the town. Two of the Melbourn houses affected were the Sun and Railway in 1958 and the Star and Garter in 1966. Both of these inns were small, uneconomic and needed extensive repairs. It was suggested by some that the Star and Garter would collapse if either of the adjoining buildings was demolished. With the growth in Stamford with its new housing estates, council housing in the east and the Jelson estates in the west, an attempt was made by the brewery to exchange licences in the centre of town to have a pub on the town’s outskirts. An attempt was made to get the franchise to build what became the Danish Invader but this was unsuccessful. Probably the most surprising survival was the Hit or Miss on Foundry Road, which remained a beer house till 1961 when it finally acquired a full licence. During the 1960s not only were the much larger national brewery companies buying up small breweries, they were also entering into contracts with firms like Melbourn’s to sell their lagers and bottled beers. Melbourn’s had for many years sold bottled Guinness along with their own brands of pale ales. But brewing lager was clearly beyond the capabilities of the All Saints' Street site. The firm therefore entered into a number of trading agreements. Through this process the Strugglers at Lincoln was acquired on lease in 1963 from Bass Charrington. Terms were also made with Whitbread, which added the Wheatsheaf at Greetham, also in 1963, and the White Swan at Woodnewton in 1968. When in 1971 the business was acquired by the Earl of Liverpool and the Earl of Gainsborough, the firm of Melbourn Brothers had thirty-two tied public houses. These covered an area from Ingham in the north to Woodnewton in the south, and ranged from the small village inn to large coaching inns – both in the ancient and modern meaning of the word. Some had been recently modernised whilst others were badly in need of repair and required extensive alterations to bring them up to modern standards. The Brewhouse was also in need of investment, with its equipment being almost entirely Victorian, and so it was no surprise that brewing ceased in 1974. This short paper is based on research carried out in the late 1970s when surviving records were still held on the brewery site. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back F Dawson, Grocer, Stamford. Unofficial Farthing (W.4820) Martin R Warburton The Token Book 2 (Galata 2013) indicated that no information could be found about this issuer. Research at Stamford Library and in the British Newspaper Archive has revealed that Frederick Dawson was in business for only two years, from 1854 to 1856, and so avoided being recorded as a Grocer in either the 1851 or the 1861 census. Being in business for only a short time probably accounts for the scarcity of the token. During his short time as a shopkeeper he was, however, a frequent advertiser in the local papers. Examples include the start of his business in the Stamford Mercury of April 28th 1854; The apparent success of his business by advertising in June 1855 for an ‘...APPRENTICE. A Dissenter preferred...’; And the suggestion that perhaps all was not well with the business in his announcement in the Stamford Mercury of January 25th 1856; Frederick Dawson was born in 1832/3, a son of William Dawson, Baker and Confectioner of St Mary’s Street, Stamford. He is probably the same Frederick Dawson who died in Stamford in 1881, aged 48. Chandos House in the High Street is thought to be the first building on the right leading from Red Lion Square (to the left of St John’s Church) and is currently an outdoor clothing shop. Frederick Dawson’s short-lived business can possibly be connected with the decline in passing trade experienced by Stamford when the railways arrived from the late 1840s onwards. Before this his shop was in a prime location next to Red Lion Square on the old Great North Road from London to Edinburgh. Coaches stopped and horses were changed in Stamford. The other side of Red Lion Square still boasts The Millstone public house offering ‘good stabling and loose boxes’. It all changed though with the coming of the railways; progressively east and west from Stamford (Town) from 1846 to 1851, and from Stamford (East) in 1856. Many thanks for assistance go to Chris Hunt of the Stamford Local History Society and to Dave Smith of the Token Corresponding Society. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Battle for 51 High Street, Stamford By Richard Asher The story of a Listed Building and the battle to save it in the 1960s A talk given for the Stamford Local History Society on 4th Dec 2025. Photograph - Stamford Library The property pictured was 51 High Street Stamford This photograph was probably taken in the 1930s. In the 1960s, it became a battleground between the modernisers and the conservationists, as equally important locally as the famous battle for the Euston Arch was in London. I particularly want to talk about No. 51. That is because for me this is a personal memory. Although I was not involved in the dispute itself (I was still at school at the time), this building is part of the reason I was born in Stamford, my home town, and the town whose history has come to mean so much to me. So, let me explain. My dad, Fred Asher, was born and brought up in the tiny village of Dunsby, the other side of Bourne. When he was 14, he left school and started to work as an office boy for a local business in Bourne called Longstaff and Lyall Ltd. They were auctioneers and land agents. He eventually became an assistant to Thomas R Lyall, one of the directors. Fred Asher auctioning livestock (photo R Asher) After the war, having been in the army, my dad returned to work for Longstaff and Lyall at Bourne. [i] However, in 1947, Thomas Lyall asked him to run the Stamford office. In 1949, my dad married my mum, and they set up home in Stamford. I was born the following year in Stamford Hospital. Longstaff and Lyall occupied 51 High Street as their Stamford office. The Company had been based there since about 1938. Subsequently, my dad became a qualified Auctioneer and a Partner in the business (see left). So, you see, if my dad had not been sent to the Stamford office at 51 High Street, I may never have been born in Stamford. No. 51 was thought to date back to at least the 1600s and had been at different times, a public house (The Windmill), a school, and a private house. John Daffurn’s book “Stamford Assets” recalls that it was one of the buildings acquired by the Newcombe family in the nineteenth century and recounts two unusual deaths that occurred in the building [ii] . This photograph shows the front of the building just before it was demolished. ( Photographs RCHM ) On the back of the building in the pargetting, you can just about make out the shape of a windmill, and next to it a date “1690”. It is not clear if the two images are connected, but in his book “Stamford Pubs and Breweries” Martin Smith speculates that it could have been one of the larger Inns of the town [iii] . Photograph RCHM I remember the building well from the early nineteen sixties. What was it like inside? Well, the photograph below gives some idea of the main office on the ground floor and, yes, that is me aged about 14 in the centre of the photograph. Photograph - R Asher The place was in poor repair and the facilities limited, just one toilet used by all the office staff, who numbered about 7 or 8 people. There was no hot water, and no central heating, with just very ancient gas fires. The only way to wash the tea pot and mugs was to disconnect the gas pipe to the fire in the general office and reconnect it to a gas ring on which to boil the kettle. The same process was repeated, once the mugs had been washed and dried, to make the tea. Only then could the gas fire be re-connected, until the next time tea was required! I also recall being sent to collect a sheet of hardboard from Scholes’ shop at 3 Ironmonger Street. This sheet was to put over the wooden floor in one of the first-floor offices, as the typists had been complaining that their high-heel shoes were getting caught in the holes in the floorboards! In those days I had no idea what a Listed Building was or what it meant. But subsequently I discovered that the building had been subject to a Building Preservation Order and was a Grade II listed building. Around 1963, the owner of 51 High Street was approached, along with the adjoining owners at 46, 47, 48, 49, & 50 High Street and 4, 5, & 6 Maiden Lane, by the Pearl Assurance Company Limited with a view to the Insurance Company acquiring all of the properties on the High Street between the then Co-op Drapery store (now Weird Fish & Magnet Kitchens) and the National Westminster Bank branch, on the corner of Maiden Lane (now Starbucks). Pearl Assurance were a major player in the insurance industry. They were, like all the large insurance companies of the day, heavily into property development as a way of investing for future returns. They had decided that Stamford was ripe for a development of new shops, and particularly a branch of one of the fast-expanding national supermarket chains. In those days, there was no such thing as “out-of-town shopping” or hypermarkets and a 6,000 sq. ft. “in town” supermarket was considered the right size for a town such as Stamford. It should also be remembered that, in those days, Stamford High Street was still a main road. Rear servicing was an important requirement to prevent serious traffic hold ups on the High Street. Thus, the plan was to build a new Tesco supermarket, and 4 new shop units, with offices above. All the shops would be serviced from an access in Maiden Lane. This plan required the demolition of 47 to 51 High Street and 4 to 6 Maiden Lane. The battle lines were drawn. The situation was quite complex. On the conservation front, in favour of retaining the listed buildings (which were 51 High Street and 5 & 6 Maiden Lane) were the relatively newly formed Stamford Civic Society and some of Stamford Borough councillors. On the other hand, others of the Stamford Borough Council members were all for the modernisation of Stamford. The County Council – in those days the Kesteven County Council was also split. The Ministry of Transport, who had a say because the High Street was part of the A16 Stamford to Boston Trunk Road, wanted the development to go ahead because it would allow them to insist on the building line being set back to permit them to almost double the road width at this narrow part of the High Street. The debate went on for over 3 years as to whether the buildings should be demolished. Site meetings were held between Stamford Borough Council, Kesteven County Council, and the developers. Plans were revised and resubmitted. Eventually, it was agreed that all the buildings on the High Street should be demolished (including 51), but on Maiden Lane only No 4. It was decided that 5 & 6 Maiden Lane should be saved from demolition. Also, the new building erected at No 4 Maiden Lane must incorporate the doorway to the Albert Hall (at No. 46 High Street) which was to be taken down and rebuilt in its new position – at the back of No 4 Maiden Lane, where it remains to this day – where few people know it exists – and usually it is hidden by dustbins. The Department of Transport did not fully get its way either. The building line was to be set back, but only by 3 feet, leaving a slight dogleg in the pavement between the new development and the bank (now Starbucks). But, then, in the 1970s, the High Street became a pedestrian precinct anyway! So, the demolition of 51 High Street got underway in the summer of 1966. But that was not the end of the story. During demolition, what was described by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments as “a painted studwork wall C1600” [iv] was discovered. The photograph shows the wall in situ soon after it was discovered. Photograph RCHM Photograph RCHM Urgent discussions were held, and it was agreed that the wall should be removed for conservation. This photograph (on the left) shows a remarkable painted panel from the wall soon after conservation. The wall is now in the Stamford Museum Store carefully protected by a Perspex screen. The story of its removal and its remarkable journey from Stamford to Lincoln and back to Stamford would provide enough material for another article. Photograph of the wall in the Stamford Museum Store by R Asher Photograph - Richard Asher Also, found “built into the chimney was a limestone panel” [v] . This proved to be the stone in this photograph. The inscription has been translated [vi] as: Ye who enter this house Pray for Blanche wife of Lord Wake Daughter of Henry Earl of Lancaster On whom God have true mercy. It is believed that this was the memorial stone for Lady Blanche Wake, daughter of Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster. She was the great grand-daughter of Henry III. It is thought that she was buried in the Greyfriars Church in Stamford in 1380. How the stone found its way to the High Street is not known, but it could have been used as building material after the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s. The fully restored stone is now on the north wall of St George’s Church where the above photograph was taken. In conclusion, should 51 High Street have been allowed to be demolished? In my view it should not. Although dilapidated, and in need of substantial modernisation, it could have been repaired and conserved. However, the conservation movement, was not as advanced then as it is now. Whilst the property was a Listed Building, there was no conservation area legislation allowing planners to consider individual buildings in the wider street view context. Historic Buildings could only be considered on their own merits, not as a contribution to the street scene. On the plus side, if the building had not been demolished, we would never have been able to see two magnificent medieval artifacts which we have today – the painted wall and the Wake Memorial. Also, within a year or so of its demolition, Stamford was designated the first Conservation Area in the country under the new Civic Amenities Act – I like to think that this designation as the first Conservation Area was spurred on by the response to the demolition of 51 High Street. My boyhood memories of 51 High Street, helped me to appreciate the historic buildings of Stamford even more. [i] The firm name was changed in the 1950s to just Lyall & Co. [ii] “Stamford Assets a catalogue of Newcombe Family Property”, John Daffurn, Eptex 2024. [iii] “ Stamford Pubs and Breweries ” Martin Smith, Spiegl Press 2006 [iv] The Town of Stamford, A Survey by the Royal Commission on Historical Monument s” HMSO, London 1977 [v] ibid [vi] Taken from “ Grey Friars or White Friars? In search of Stamford’s Friaries”, Linda Ball, Chalybate Books, 2021. 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 Parliamentary Election 1847 (Hustings and Poll) Chris Hunt 2022 On Friday July 30th 1847 the hustings for the Parliamentary election in Stamford were erected in Broad Street for the candidates to present themselves for nomination before the electors of the Borough. It was the first true contested election in the town for nearly forty years and the growing unrest in both the middle and lower classes uniting against the Burghley interest meant that there was a real possibility of political change. Both believed that the economic future was dependent on the London to York railway passing through the town and that the Marquis of Exeter was working to prevent such a route. An expansion of the town and its numbers of voters would have of course destroyed for ever his control. The independent minded amongst the Borough Council had found John Rolt Esquire as a candidate and using the George and Angel on St Mary’s Street as a base began their campaign with the support of Alderman Richard Newcomb – owner and proprietor of the Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. On the day of the hustings Mr Rolt and his supporters met up at the George and Angel to march to Broad Street, by the time they got there the crowd numbered close to two thousand. Lord Exeter’s nominees – the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries arrived slightly later with few supporters who were shouted at and hissed by the crowd. It was reported in the Stamford Mercury that all the remarks were in ‘good humour’. Once the initial formalities had been completed the nominations began. Doctor Hopkinson nominated the Marquis of Granby stating that the Marquis was a fit person to represent the town and having done so these last ten years. However, within his speech he highlighted a bill signed: ‘An Elector, to which it was stated that the Noble Lord’s and Mr Herries’s friends had been guilty of exercising undue influence. He begged distinctly to say that no influence of the kind had been put into practise’. This was met by cheers which were soon drowned out with hissing and cries of ‘It has’. Mr Cayley seconded the nomination speaking of the ability and integrity of the Marquis of Granby; however, most of his speech was drowned out by the crowd. Mr C.Haycock then proposed the Right Honourable John Charles Herries of Sevenoaks, Kent; as the second candidate for Stamford. The crowd by now had found its voice and it was a while before he began to speak. Much of which was drowned out by the crowd. Mr Henry Chase Atlay seconded the nomination. Mr Hatfield then came forward to nominate Mr Rolt, he was met with much cheering at which he stated that it was time that Stamford had its own representative. He stated that the question had to be considered ‘whether Lord Exeter should continue to usurp the power of returning both their members’. ‘it was a shame that any attempt should be made to prevent the electors to having at least some share in the choice’. He then reminded the crowd, although it was probably as much as a message to the Burghley candidates ‘that there was a standing order of the House of Commons which made it a high infringement of the Liberties of the People for a Peer of Parliament to interfere in elections to the House of Commons’. He reminded the crowd that such influence of the aristocracy would be able by legislation to coerce both the Crown and the People. He then stated that ‘it was a maxim of the constitution that the People should not be taxed without their consent; but that principle became an absurdity when the electors were prevented from choosing whom they thought proper to vote the taxes, and were threaten with pains and penalties, which being turned out of their houses, or deprived of their trade or means of living, if they made a free and conscientious selection’. He then stated that suffrage was not given as a right for a man’s own benefit, it was a privilege for the benefit of his fellow man. He then spoke of the loss of freemen’s right because of a lack of proper representation, an issue which closely touched on the majority of the adult male population of the town. Whether or not they had the vote. In finishing his speech he raised the issue of the mainline railway passing through the town and; ‘to serious loss the town was likely to experience by the carrying to a distance of the Great Northern Railway through the Marquis of Exeter’s opposition to it from pecuniary motives’. In proving this point he reminded the crowd how the Marquis had offered land to the railway company at ‘monstrous terms’ compared with prices he had been willing to buy land only a few years previous. Mr G.H.Betts then seconded Mr Rolt’s nomination. After mentioning issues around the Corn Law and Game Laws he too raised the issue of the north-south railway and ‘the scandalous manner in which the town had been cheated out of the advantages of railway communication from North to South’. The support of the gathered crowd at the hustings was very much in support of John Rolt for when the Marquis of Granby addressed the crowd he was met with a ‘storm of hissing’. When he finally spoke he attempted to defend his position on the Great Northern Railway, he had met a deputation from Stamford on the matter and that he had told them ‘that he would consult Lord Exeter on the subject’ produced laughter in the crowd. He then stated that ‘in doing so, he believed he had acted honourably and fairly’, a wag in the crowd was recorded as heckling; “Yes, to Lord Exeter, but not to the town’. When asked by Mr Tebbutt whether the Marquis would support the railway bill if it was reintroduced, stated ‘I will pledge myself to nothing’. He then stated that he had supported the increase to the Maynooth Grant - a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland - , alterations to the Corn Laws and the Ten-Hours Factory Bill. Mr Herries then addressed the crowd and he too was met with much hissing and groans. He stated that he had twenty-year’s service in Parliament of which ten years had been as a minister, latterly as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that Stamford was exempt from corruption which antagonised the crowd. There was more heckling about why having been elected eight times for Harwich he was now standing in Stamford. His view on secret ballots when asked by an electorate was that such a change would be against the ‘honesty of Englishmen’. After stating that those who had the vote should use them and those who do not should make no noise, so aggravated the crowd that the cry that ‘You have insulted the nonvoters and so we will not hear you’ was the end of his address. He just gave up. Mr Rolt then addressed the crowd. He stated that he would come ‘to the great question’, which was ‘whether the constituency of Stamford should be free’. He reported to the crowd that he had spoken to many of them and that he had been told that although they wanted him to be elected to Parliament they could not vote for him because of their fears of ‘ejected from their houses or lose some of their customers’. His view on the Corn Laws was that they should be given a fair trial and if they if they were not of benefit and led to the ruin of agricultural interests then there should be a return to protectionism. He also stated that he supported the use of public taxes for the education of the People. Mr Rolt then touched on other aspects, including, the Maynooth grant, the Health of Towns Bill, the Poor Law, the Great Northern Railway measure; his views on these matters being supported by the crowd. He finally asked the Electors to ‘assert their independence’ in voting for him. The nominations being received the call for the vote was heard and the Mayor declared Mr Rolt and the Marquis of Granby elected. At this point Mr Haycock on behalf of Mr Herries demanded a poll. Mr Rolt was then escorted by a large crowd to his residence in Rock Terrace and on the Friday evening he addressed a meeting at the George and Angel. The polling commenced on Saturday morning at about 8.00am and was carried on till about 11.00am, all the time the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries being in front. Shortly after 2.00pm with the populous become more and more tumultuous and Mr Rolt realising that there was insufficient votes still to be polled agreed to ‘resign the contest’. After the books were closed the Mayor declared that the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries had been elected and the votes cast were: For the Marquis of Granby 359 For Mr Herries 290 For Mr Rolt 234 The Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries after saying a few words at the Stamford Hotel after Mr Rolt resigned the contest left Stamford by train to London via Cambridge before the vote was declared. Whilst Mr Rolt addressed a large crowd at the George and Angel stating that he would be willing to stand again in the Borough and that the reason for his defeat was that twenty-three voters had promised to vote on his behalf but had been ‘induced by customary means’ to vote for Mr Herries and that others who had stated that they were going to remain neutral recorded their votes for the Burghley nominees. The following week it was being reported in the Stamford Mercury how the recent contested election had passed so quietly. Although, it was noted that by some that they would have voted differently if the Marquis of Exeter’s agents had not been present. Unfortunately, the political future in Stamford over the next few years was hardly quiet. Resulting in violence at subsequent Municipal elections, alleged corruption in the ‘buying of votes’, Burghley Tenants thrown out of their homes, and an investigation of the Parliamentary election by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Chris Hunt A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Nora Blake: young Stamford pacifist K Hansell, N J Sheehan 2021 Following the World War One exhibition at Stamford Arts Centre in November 2018, the Society was contacted by Paul Markwell regarding his mother Nora Blake. As a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl in Stamford, Nora wrote the winning essay in a national competition for children of ex-servicemen. Her achievement was reported in The Stamford and Rutland News on Tuesday May 8, 1934, and the essay was reproduced in full in the next issue of the newspaper. Stamford St George’s School Girl’s Prize Essay 1934 Nora Blake (aged 13) War War! The very word makes me shiver. Although the Great War ended before I was born, I know enough about it to realise that all countries concerned are still suffering from its results. We are all paying the penalty. No country can spend four years in destruction, blowing millions of pounds in the air in the form of shells, without suffering from chaos. The whole of the industrialised world was disorganised, and as a consequence many soldiers who survived from the war without serious consequences came back only to find it impossible to secure employment. Also thousands of families mourn the loss of loved ones, and thousands more have the care of those who were disabled, the blind, the crippled, the insane. Truly war levies a terrible toll. Without dwelling unduly on the horrors of war, or its far-reaching ill effects on the community, I think that all will agree that the great task of this generation is to arrange international affairs so that another war is avoided. Politicians during the war, I understand, talked a lot about it being a war to end war and since 1918 the League of Nations has had a meeting in Geneva with this end in view. Disarmament Conferences have been held and there has been much talk between nations. But, while every country agrees that war should end, the nations have not been able to form any plans to satisfy all. Every conference has closed without achieving any tangible result and this is a very disappointing state of affairs. After sixteen years of conferences we find that the nations mistrust each other and are afraid to put down armaments. Suspicion is the order of the day and we find nations arranging to spend more money on defence services. All are seeking security but will a competition in armaments give security? Let us consider this question. This makes us think about the next war. I think that there will be as much difference in the next war and the Great War as there was between that and the Napoleonic Wars. I think death will come from the air in the form of gas and poison bombs. Attacks will take us by surprise and the result will be that large cities, with all their inhabitants, will be wiped out in a few hours. It seems very possible to spend all out lives in defence and yet be unsafe. What is the alternative? Just this. All lovers of peace must continue to work for gradual disarmament, even if their cause seems hopeless. All education should have this end view. Public demonstrations of a warlike nature should be avoided. Children should not be taken to torchlight tattoos and boys should not be encouraged to play with toy soldiers. An international army, having all the armaments of the world, should keep peace in the same way that the police force keeps civil peace. It is very rarely that a policeman has to fight but the knowledge that he is there, backed by the powers of justice, is generally sufficient to keep us safe from robbery and violence and I think that is the ideal for all peace lovers, for the world to be policed. Now, no idea was ever realised easily. Rome was not built in a day and all the countries of the world will not become suddenly reasonable. But if all people who believe, as I do, will work and pray for “The Day”, it will come. It may not be in our time. But good citizens are always content to work for a future generation. In our school we have a book on citizenship which has on the cover a figure of the head of Jesus. It has two faces. So, in school, we learn the history of the past. We find that great progress has been made and that the world is much better to live in than it was in the middle ages. When we compare conditions with what they are today, we should be optimistic for the future. Shades of the great reformers of all times encourage us to carry on with the good work and not to doubt the ultimate result. It also seems to me that all nations are waiting for someone to take the lead. They are like children. I frequently hear children say “I will if you will” but no one wants to that the initiative. I believe that if France would only begin, Germany would be glad to follow and vice versa. I wish one country would have the courage to tell the world “We will disarm by 1950”. If the country could be my own, I should be very proud. I for one would be willing to take the risk. If I am to have a sticky finish, I should like to know that my country has done the right thing. If the world persists in arming, a future war is inevitable. It may not be in my time, but as a good citizen, that is no consolation. I am aware that all I have said is idealistic, but nevertheless, all good peace-loving people must work for peace on these lines, looking with the eye of faith for the glorious dawn of the day when “Swords shall be turned into plough-shares and spears into pruning hooks” The Winning Medal Nora Blake was the third of the four children of Frank and Vida Blake, with an elder brother John, sister, Olive and a younger brother, Ken. They were all born and brought up in Stamford. Nora left school at 15 and went to work at Martin-Markham Ltd where she met her future husband, Len Markwell. In later life she was known as "Jill". Len and Jill moved to Ryhall in 1956 where they lived for over 50 years. Jill Markwell continued to write for pleasure, often poems that she would send to friends. She was always very proud of the medal that she won in the national competition when she was 13. Jill sadly passed away in May 2009. 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