< Back NEW LANDLORD AND REFURBISHMENT AT THE GEORGE INN 1725 Submitted by Chris Hunt The George Inn in St Martins, alias Stamford Baron, Northamptonshire, being the largest and best Inn in Town, is being kept by Jonathan Smith, late of the Bear Inn at Reading, Berkshire, is just now new furnished; therefore is ready for the Entertainment of Persons of Quality and Others, with good Usage. N.B. He sells full Market Measure of Corn in the Stables. Source. Stamford Mercury (Thursday) April 8th 1725 p11/c2. Note. In 1725 the Stamford Mercury was published on a Thursday. The pages were not numbered by issue. A Printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Life and Loves of my Great Great Grandfather A talk for the Stamford Local History Society on 4th Dec 2025 by Trish Auciello George's death certificate This is my great great grandfather’s death certificate, he died in Spalding in January 1912 of bronchitis. There are three problems with this certificate: That’s not his name, that’s not his age, and that’s not his wife George was born in Barholm in 1844 as George Bunning Peake, the son of John and Susannah. John was an agricultural labourer and George followed in his footsteps. George's marriage certificate George married Margaret Hyde in January 1868 in Uffington Church, when he was 24 and she was 28. Margaret was born in Stamford in 1840 and had a tough childhood. Her father, John, was a stonemason, a skilled occupation, but they lived in Protection Place, just off Scotgate, known as a notorious slum. There were five children and Margaret’s mother, also Margaret, died aged 32 of tuberculosis when Margaret was four. John’s mother, another Margaret, moved in with them but she died in 1851, and John died in 1861. In 1861, Margaret was in service with an ironmonger in St. John’s Street, and in 1865, she had a son, called William. Margaret's Affiliation Order In March1866, Margaret obtained an affiliation order against William Harrison for child support of 1s 6d per week, worth about £15 today. He is described as a former employee of Mr Daffurn, did he lose his job because he had fathered a child outside of marriage? If life was tough for Margaret growing up, it did not improve after her marriage. Her daughter, Betsey, was born in July 1868, so Margaret was pregnant when she married George. They moved into Stamford and were living in Brittain’s Court, another slum area off Scotgate in February 1870. George's court appearance early February 1870 George appeared in court on 7th February 1870, accused of breaking into his mother’s house in Barholm and stealing various articles, some of which he pawned in Stamford. I’ve not found any follow up to this story, perhaps his mother decided not to press charges. However, just 3 weeks later…. George's trial late February 1970 George pleaded guilty to stealing a manure fork, value 1s 6d, and pawning it in Stamford. I don’t think the pawn broker was too fussy. His solicitor stated that George hadn’t been able to find work all winter and the family was in a fearful state of poverty. Margaret was described as being near her confinement, but didn’t want to enter the workhouse in case they lost their current home. George was sentenced to seven days in prison and Margaret was advised she could seek out-relief for a week. The sad postscript to this story is that there’s no record of a live birth to Margaret, perhaps those months of deprivation took their toll and the baby was stillborn. Margaret was pregnant again in the summer of 1870. George's court appearance November 1870 George was charged with fraud in Market Deeping and committed to trial at the sessions. His crime was obtaining an pair of trousers and boots by deception, it would probably only merit a fine today, but in 1870 it meant he spent the next two months in prison awaiting trial. George's trial January 1871 George pleaded guilty at his trial, and was sentenced to a further month in prison with hard labour. Folkingham House of Correction George served his time in prison here. The gatehouse is still standing and can be rented as a holiday home for around £2,000 a week in peak season. If Margaret hadn’t wanted to enter the workhouse earlier in 1870, it was inevitable when George went to prison. Stamford Workhouse on Barnack Road In the 1871 census, Margaret is in Stamford workhouse, with William, Betsey, and her son George junior, aged just 3 weeks. In the same census, George is working on a farm at Deeping St. Nicholas and claiming to be single. Inquest 1872 In August 1872, Margaret was a witness at an inquest into the sudden death of her neighbour from apoplexy. They were living on Rock Road, so it’s safe to assume George has returned to the family and indeed he started working for Hayes Coachbuilders around this time. William's Death Record Margaret’s son William died in 1874 aged 9, after being ill for a year with tubercular peritonitis. Rock Road, Stamford In 1881, the family was still in Rock Road, somewhere on the left of this photo but long since demolished. The family now consisted of George and Margaret, Betsey, George junior, my future great grandmother, Mary Ann, bon in 1875, and twin girls, Margaret and Martha Jane, born in 1879. They also had a lodger, Thomas Dexter, who worked at Hayes. So had life settled down? After all, George had been in stable employment for nearly 10 years, they had been living in the same house for around the same time, a lodger provided extra income – unfortunately not. George's trial August 1883 In August 1883, George and another man were found guilty of stealing five trusses of clover, the property of Hayes and Son, his employers for the past ten years. If a truss of clover is the same size as hay, they weighed at least 60 pounds each, not something you could easily hide. Folkingham had closed by now, George may have served his three month sentence in Sleaford. Why did he do it? Was he still struggling to support a growing family, or was it just stupidity? Corporation Buildings built 1891 George left his family, and Stamford, sometime between his 1883 prison term and the 1891 census. In 1891, Margaret was living in Corporation Buildings, on Scotgate. She is sharing three rooms with Betsey, George junior, the twins, her widowed brother John, their lodger from Rock Road, Thomas, and another lodger Elizabeth Andrews aged one. Elizabeth’s mother was unmarried and left Stamford soon after her daughter’s birth, leaving her with Margaret to look after. Margaret’s brother John remarried in 1892, but the sleeping arrangements would still have been interesting as Betsey and Thomas married in 1893. In 1891, my great grandmother was in service at 4 Barn Hill, where I like to think she had her own bedroom. 22 Scotgate built 1901 Margaret’s situation has improved by 1901, she’s now living at 22 Scotgate, the left hand half of the building in the picture. Although I imagine Thomas was paying most of the bills, Margaret was described as head of the house, also living there are Betsey and Thomas, the twins, and Elizabeth, now described as a foster daughter. My great grandmother, Mary Ann, had married in 1895, after she had their son in 1894. George junior married in 1899. With life improving for Margaret, let’s look at what George has been doing. 48 Westgate, Peterborough George was living in Peterborough in 1891, in the left hand corner section of this building. He is described as a bricklayer’s labourer. With him and described as his wife, is Susannah W. Peake, a laundress aged 39, and her son Alfred W. W. Peake, also a bricklayer’s labourer aged 17. This property looks more spacious than the three rooms Margaret is sharing with seven people in Stamford. Susannah was born in Stamford in 1851 as Susannah Harrison. In 1871, she was living and working in a pub, and later that year, she married Harry Wallis, a carpenter originally from Empingham, and had their son, Alfred William, a year later. Harry’s enlistment? Harry's enlistment? In 1876, Harry Wallis, born in Empingham, living in Stamford enlisted in the Royal Artillery. His age is four years younger, but surely this must be Susannah’s husband. So is this chicken or egg? Did Harry enlist and Susannah say “sod this for a game of soldiers”? or did she leave and Harry went for a less extreme version of the French Foreign Legion? After Harry’s army career, he spent the rest of his life in Leicester with at least two female housekeepers, and died in 1912 aged 63. What is certain is that Susannah was living in Kensington, London, in 1881, with her son Alfred. She is described as the wife of Thomas Wallis, a bricklayer, born in Kilsby, Northamptonshire. I haven’t been able to find Thomas Wallis anywhere else, so I think Susannah was using her name on the census. I don’t know whether Susannah thought Kensington would be smart and exciting, but there were four families totalling twenty five people in the same house. A plot worthy of EastEnders? So many questions…. Who was Thomas and how did he get together with Susannah? Stamford or London? Why did Susannah leave London, was it with or without Thomas? With Thomas being a bricklayer, is there any significance in George and Alfred being bricklayer’s labourers? Did they work with Thomas, perhaps locally? It’s likely that George and Susannah knew each other from her time at the pub, did they meet again through Thomas? If Thomas and George did work together locally, did they continue to do so after Susannah got together with George? Although these events could have been used in EastEnders, unfortunately this is real life and I have no answers to the questions raised. There’s no information on the 1891 census for 48 Westgate so perhaps they didn’t complete it that year. 22 Scotgate again in 1911 Margaret’s daughter Margaret married in 1905, and Martha Jane in 1908. In 1911, the remaining family are still at 22 Scotgate, but Thomas is now shown as head of the family, with Betsey and the foster daughter Elizabeth. Margaret has been relegated to the bottom of the page as mother-in-law. George in 1911 How I know that the George Wallis on the death certificate is George Bunning Peake? It’s because of the 1911 census. George and Susannah are living at 88 Winsover Road in Spalding, he is described as George Peak Wallace (Wallace and Wallis seem to have been interchangeable), aged 72, a bricklayer’s labourer from Stamford. His age is incorrect but it’s also wrong on the death certificate. The 1911 census asks for number of years married and children born alive. Susannah says she had one child, now dead, I haven’t been able to find Alfred to confirm this. She has given her years married as 39, which is factually correct, just not to George. 88 Winsover Road, Spalding This is where George and Susannah were living in 1911 and where George died in 1912. Spalding Cemetery George is buried in Spalding Cemetery, there’s no headstone but he’s somewhere in this area. Susannah died in 1918 of heart failure and she’s buried four graves away from George. Margaret's death Margaret died in 1917 aged 76 of arthritis deformans and exhaustion. By the time of her death, she had raised six children, seen two of them die, and had nine grandchildren. Margaret’s son George junior had died in 1915 from tuberculosis of the spine. One son-in-law and her eldest grandson served in WW1 and they both survived. Stamford Cemetery Margaret is buried in Stamford cemetery, she doesn’t have a headstone either, but her grave is shown here with the arrow. The grave with the book headstone is her daughter Martha Jane and her husband Charles, the cross is her grandson Thomas who died in 1926, and the small low marker to the right is Betsey and Thomas. Her other children are all buried in the cemetery. Conclusion George seems to have done his best for his family in the early years of his marriage, even if crime didn’t pay – not the ones we know about anyway. I’ve tried not to be too judgemental but it’s difficult to forgive George for deserting his family. I hope Margaret’s children were grateful that she was made of sterner stuff. Trish Auciello December 2025 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Blackstone & Co Works Rules 1916 Chris Hunt 2018 WORKS RULES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF BLACKSTONE & Co., Ltd., RUTLAND ENGINEERING WORKS STAMFORD February 28th 1916 1. Working Hours. The Buzzer will sound ten minutes before and at the times for commencing work, namely 6 a.m., 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. It will also sound at the times for leaving off work, namely, 8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5.30 p.m., and at 12 noon on Saturday. For night shifts the hours to be from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. 2. Meal Times. Day-time 8 to 8.30 a.m., and 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Night-time 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., with a break of 15 minutes at 2 p.m., during which period the machinery will not be stopped. 3. Overtime. Overtime is to be worked when, and to what extent required. All time lost during the week shall be made up before overtime is reckoned. 4. Orders. Orders and directions issued by the Managers and Foremen must be carried out promptly and efficiency. 5. Losing Time. Special attention must be paid to good time-keeping, in order that the output of the Establishment may be as effective as possible. Illness should be the sole justification for absence from work and such absence should be covered by a Doctor’ Certificate. 6. Piecework. Piece or contract work is to be worked as, when, and where required by the Management. In all cases of piecework the time rates will be guaranteed. 7. Time Recording. All men, when starting work, will be given a number and be provided with a card with the number upon it for use in the time-recording clocks. Upon this each man is expected to enter the time spent on the various jobs upon which he is employed. Great care is to be taken in booking the correct order numbers and quantities on his time card. All time cards must be given in each week to the Foreman on Wednesday night. Time Cards may be stamped in the morning any time from 5.50 to 6.30. Every minute made after6 will count, but after 6.30 no time can be booked until 8.30. Each man must stamp his card as follows: ----- On entering in the morning before breakfast. On commencing work after breakfast. On commencing work after dinner. On finishing for the day. The card must then be left in the proper partition provided in the box. Night hands must stamp on commencement at 6 p.m.: on leaving at 9 p.m.: on entering at 10 p.m.: and when leaving at 6 a.m. Cards must not be stamped more than ten minutes before working hours. Time will be made up and paid to the nearest quarter of an hour. Each man must see that his name, number, and the date are properly filled in. Under no circumstances can anyone stamp another’s card, by so doing he renders himself liable to instant dismissal, as also by defacing the stamping on his card. 8. Payment of Wages. Payment to be made at 12 noon on Saturday, with the exception of the night shift men, who will be paid at 6 p.m. on Fridays. 9. Care of Tools. Small tools are to be obtained from the tool room, and a check filled in by the man who receives such tools will be deposited in their place, which check will be given back when the tools are returned. Upon any man leaving or being discharged his tools must be given up to the Tool Room Foreman. Tools broken or not returned will be charged for at cost price. 10. Cleaning of Machines. No part of any machine or machinery is on any account to be cleaned or wiped down while any part of the machine is in motion. The cleaning or the wiping down of any machine or of any machinery is to be done only by those in charge of the machinery or machine tools, or by such other person as may be appointed by the Foreman or Works Manager. The last half-hour of Saturday morning is allowed for cleaning and is paid for at daywork rate. 11. Accidents. Any accident to persons or machinery is to be reported at once to the Foreman in charge. Workmen are strictly prohibited from putting on driving belts. This work, and the repairing of belts, is to be done only by the belt man or such person as may be appointed. Where belts have to be applied, or in cases where it is necessary to effect repairs to shafts, bearings, &c., the shafts must be at rest. Workmen are specially cautioned against wearing any loose jacket or sleeve or loose garment of any kind when working at, or in close proximity to, machines or machinery in motion, or which is liable to be put in motion. 12. Commencing and remaining at work. Every man will be provided with a copy of the Rules when starting work for the first time, and is expected to read and abide by them. When a man is engaged he must sign the works register and his signature will be his receipt for the book of rules. Every man must be in his place and at work immediately the buzzer has ceased to sound. All workman must enter and leave the works by the workmen’s entrance and make their way to and from their departments by the appointed roads and doors. 13. Absence from Work. Any man absenting himself without informing his foreman as to the cause, and who is absent for a period exceeding two consecutive days, must report himself to his Foreman before recommencing. 14. Fires. Workmen using portable fires are to exercise every precaution to eliminate any possibility of danger to the surroundings or building. No such fires may be lighted without orders. 15. Permit to leave the works during working hours. No one is allowed to pass out of the works during working hours, without a permit duly signed by the Foreman of the Department of the Works Manager. 16. Material. No material will be issued from the Stores without an order signed by the Foreman. 17. Offences. Any employee found guilty of any of the following offences shall be liable to a fine or to dismissal: --- Employing his time in carrying out work other than that for the Company. Loitering in the lavatories or using them for any purpose other than those for which they are intended. Talking, other than connected with the business, and loitering in the works or being away from his department or work without permission. Breaking open any fast lock place or opening or removing tools, &c., from any workman’s drawer or tool chest or from a bench or machine without authority. Smoking within the work gates during ordinary working hours. Bringing intoxicating liquor, or being intoxicated within the works. Bringing any person into the works without permission. Using waste, oil or any articles otherwise than as directed or for the purpose for which same is given out. Taking chips or any articles whatever out of the works without a permit signed by the Works Manager. Refusing to obey any lawful order of the Manager, Foreman or other Superintendent. Committing any act of dishonesty. Taking Time Cards off the rack other than their own. 18. Holidays. The following holidays shall be observed as works holidays. EASTER. The Works will close at 1 o’clock on the Thursday before Good Friday and be reopened on the following Tuesday morning at 8.30 o’clock. WHITSUNTIDE. The Works will close on the Saturday before Whitsun, and be re-opened on the following Tuesday morning at 8.30 o’clock. AUGUST. The Works will close on the Saturday before Bank Holiday at 12 o’clock, and be re-opened on the following Tuesday at 8.30 o’clock. The Annual Holiday will be fixed as nearly as possible for the last week in August. CHRISTMAS. The Works will close on Christmas Eve at 1 o’clock and there will be two days’ holiday in addition to Christmas Day, the Works re-opening on the third day after Christmas Day at 8.30 o’clock. These Holidays are liable to alteration as and when determined by the conditions existing at the period the holiday falls due, and notices regarding same will be posted in due time. Note The original rule book measures three inches by four and a half inches. The eighteen rules are printed in a small type face on nine pages of a twelve page pamphlet in red covers. The date February 28th 1916 is printed on the title page. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Don’t Meddle with my Business! A sixteenth century warning Professor Alan Rogers 2012 The following letter, a transcript of an original in private hands and unpublished until now, throws light on both the workings of Stamford Town Council and its relationship with central government. It is also particularly interesting in showing how a key supporter of the Tudor monarchs protected his interests vigorously. Context: On 15 January 1553/4 it was announced that Mary Tudor, the new queen of England, was to marry Phillip II of Spain. Almost exactly six months earlier, on the death of her half-brother Edward VI, there had been a failed attempt to overturn Henry VIII’s Act of Settlement of 1543 and place Lady Jane Grey on the throne. Any suspicions and reservations which may have remained from Mary’s delayed accession were exacerbated by this marriage announcement. Inadvisably, Sir Thomas Wyatt, apparently outraged that an English monarch should consider such a marriage, tried to raise enough support to prevent the union of the two sovereign states. Initially, it appeared he had succeeded, and he moved with a small army from the west towards London reaching Ludgate and Temple Bar on 8th February, 1554. However, the many promises of troops, made by erstwhile supporters, did not materialise. The forces he had brought with him from his native Kent melted away and, crucially, royal resistance was active, determined and effective. So Wyatt had no alternative but to surrender at the gates of the City of London and trust to the mercy of the monarch and her advisers. Tried for treason on 15 March at Westminster, he was executed on 11 April. John Russell, first earl of Bedford, our letter writer, lord privy seal and at the heart of the government, was more than aware of all that was going on. Though now well advanced in years, born about 1485 and nearing seventy, he had profited substantially in every sense from a close friendship with Henry VIII. Russell had been created earl of Bedford in January 1550, just three months after he refused to move troops to Windsor to help the then protector the duke of Somerset. Russell had been using them to suppress rebels in the south-west where he had very substantial land-holdings. This proved the critical decision in the power struggle between Somerset and Northumberland; Somerset’s protectorate fell apart less than a week later. Not only did Russell reap a title from Northumberland as a result, he acquired yet more property, notably Somerset’s Long Acre estate to west of the City of London, formerly the kitchen garden of the abbey of Westminster and including Covent Garden which lay just to the north of Cecil property on the Strand. A convinced supporter of state over church, he then found himself called upon to support Northumberland’s advocacy of Lady Jane Grey as queen of England which he did most reluctantly. But Bedford moved quickly away from that faction backing Lady Jane Grey in the summer of 1553, and joined Sir William Cecil and others uneasy with what was being forced on the country. He preferred to continue his long-established relationship with the Tudor dynasty. Thus he was one of those who proclaimed Mary queen on July 19, 1553. Given that he had known her since the 1530s when his wife was one of Mary’s ladies and that he had been her supporter when such a course was dangerous, he had excellent credentials and was quickly pardoned for that reluctant support of Lady Jane Grey. Perhaps anxious to prove his loyalty beyond doubt, and to all, he insisted six months later on commanding loyal forces at the key river crossing of London Bridge during Wyatt’s rebellion. So by February 1554, when this letter was written, Bedford was back in favour, a significant figure at court, a great landowner and, ultimately the founder of a great dynasty. He writes a letter both of reassurance and warning to the town of Stamford with which he has the closest of links. Just a couple of weeks or so earlier Sir Thomas Wyatt had been arrested and was now safely lodged in the Tower of London, awaiting trial. Hence Bedford writes, “But thankes be given, unto god, all things arre nowe in good quyetnes here.” From his privileged position, at the heart of government, he knows all is well under control and secure, and that troops from Stamford will not be needed. No doubt the news of Wyatt’s surrender had already reached the town, but this letter came from the highest echelons of government – Stamford should have been well aware that the steward of their town knew exactly what was happening where it mattered. But clearly Bedford’s letter had another purpose: no one should consider usurping Bedford’s role in Stamford. In his letter he makes it clear he is in charge in Stamford also. The heading of the first meeting of the town council after Mary’s accession and after their equivalent of an annual general meeting, reads: Staunford Monday namely the vjth day of the month of November in the first year of the reign of the foresaid queen [1553] before Henry Lacy gentleman deputy of John Russell knight Lord Russell Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Bedford and one of the Council of the lady queen, head steward there ..... There can be no doubt of John Russell’s standing in the town; he had been head steward of the town since 1543 and his letter witnesses he did not regard his stewardship as a sinecure. The Alderman or Mayor, William Campenet a draper, and (Russell assumes) his fellows, have together made him aware what has been going on within the town, and he is grateful to them. But also one can almost hear the earl rumbling, “What does Lord Willoughby think he is up to? He’s trying to exercise my responsibilities. We’ll have nothing of this.” Above all else, he writes, “the Manridden is under my leading.” This unfamiliar, and interesting word, essentially archaic though resurrected by a few historians recently, is defined most usefully by the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning “the men whom a lord could call upon in time of war” and thus “a supply of men for military purposes”. So it is absolutely clear that Bedford would himself have expected to call out the Stamford muster (and possibly other local forces) as steward of the town of Stamford. It presents us with a rare example in Stamford of the steward taking action and actual responsibility. Normally he, and others, had presided in absentia, using the services of a local deputy, over the swearing in of the town’s chief officer and magistrate, the alderman. While he had been steward of the town for just ten years Russell’s links with the area were far closer. As the third husband of Ann Sapcote, and thus related by marriage to the Semark family of Thornhaugh his links to David and Richard Cecil, William’s grandfather and father were close. When Bedford died a year after this letter was written, in early 1555, Sir William Cecil in his mid-thirties was already well-established in the royal secretariat. Knighted by Edward VI in 1551, Cecil was poised to become Elizabeth’s secretary just three years later. It would be interesting to uncover the links between the rising courtier, the young William Cecil, and the experienced royal servant, Russell, during the key period from 1535 to 1550. The Letter Note: a single oblique stroke shows where the text reaches the end of a line; the double oblique indicates an oblique stroke used by the writer as a form of punctuation. Capital letters and spellings are as in the original. After my veary hartie commendations // I have receaved /your letter understandinge by the same that youe / thinke my Lord Willoughbye will muster men shortly / in Stampforde to serve the quenes ma[jes]tie // wherefore / I gyve youe harty thankes that you wold gyve / me advertisement therof // But thankes be given / unto god, all things arre nowe in good quyetnes / here so that his lordship shall not neede to / muster Anye men // Nevertheles when so / ever his lordship or any other shall muster men / there // I will that none within that my Office / do stirre or go with them, what so ever they be // / for the Manredden [1] is under my leading / to do the quenes ma[jes]ti service when oratyor/ shall serve [2] and no man shall have to / do therewith but I // and so I byd you all harty / fare well from the Court at West mynster / the xjth of February 1553 Your loving frend J Bedford [Signature in another hand, presumably Bedford’s] The Address and endorsement [on reverse] Handwriting as main letter: To my veary loving frendes Mr Alderman and his Bretherne of the Towne of A new hand: Febr 1553 John Bedfords letter of thankes o Stamford for letting himto understand of my L[ord] Willoughbys musteringe & that they shold refuse to go with him or any one but with him self [1] See Introduction above for this archaic term. [2] Obscure phrase in this context, but possibly meaning “when the summons occurs”. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< 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 Hearth Tax Return for St Martin's, Stamford - 31st July 1663 Professor Alan Roger THE HEARTH TAX RETURN FOR THE LIBERTY OF NASSABURGH, FOR 31st JULY, 1663 [Stamford St Martin's section only in this extract] note by Tim Halliday of Peterborough. Stamford Survey Group wish to thank him for permission to reproduce the Stamford section of these returns. INTRODUCTORY NOTE This is the earliest hearth tax return surviving for any part of Northamptonshire and is now to be found in the Public Record Office under reference PRO/E179/254/12. The date of the Return is a little misleading in that the regnal year is stated on the first membrane to be 4 Charles II, whereas it was made in the fourth year of the King's return to England, namely 1663, being more correctly 12 Charles II. The manuscript consists of twelve rotulets stitched together at the head and the title given above is intended literally, since it covers the whole of Nassaburgh but no other hundreds of Northamptonshire. The manuscript is in very good condition throughout. The Return is divided into separate sections for each ward of the City of Peterborough and each vill or hamlet outside the urban area of the City. At the end of each such section, the manuscript provides a total, which refers to the number of hearths therein. The totals of entries provided in italics at the end of each section have been added to the transcript so as to show the number of buildings assessed in each such ward, vill or hamlet. The entries for Peterborough and its hamlets, including Eye, are grouped together in an orderly manner, then Paston and its hamlets, followed by Glinton and Peakirk (which two ecclesiastical parishes form one manor) but thereafter the entries follow an itinerary passing backwards and forwards across the northern part of the Liberty, hamlets often appearing before their mother villages or quite apart from them, before the itinerary reaches Stamford St Martin's, after which it progresses south through the western parishes to Wansford, then east through the hamlets of Castor before terminating with Castor itself. T M H, 1986 [ Mem 10] St.Martin's Stamford Baron Fyer Harths A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Incumbents of the Stamford Churches c.1886 By Chris Hunt From Simpson Papers in Town Hall, My Notes Vol 1 pp.6 & 8 Limericks have always been popular, especially in the later C19th after Edward Lear published a series in 1845. However these reflect the attitude from the organ loft of one church ….. Six churches so six incumbents – those were the days! – JSH Found among the papers of St Michael’s Church c.1970 “Some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers.” Stamford St. Martin’s Rev. Chancellor My first is the Chancellor haughty It’s nice, folks have said, but it’s naughty With maidens to play At all hours of the day So be careful, my Chancellor haughty. St. Mary Rev Wickham My second’s th’evangelist Wickham With grace, meet and unction to lick ‘em If he’d sit rather less And stand more, I’d bless The burning and shining light, Wickhan. St. John Rev. Waller My third‘s the uxorious Waller Whose truths are not easy to swaller To blackguard the Pope Seems the limit and scope Of the brainless book learning of Waller. All .Saint Rev. Oldfield My fourth is the sociable Oldfield Who they say has the wealth of a goldfield His nieces are charming But it’s more than alarming To sit for an hour under Oldfield St. George.Rev. HB Browning My fifth is the invalid Browning Much given to fireside and frowning When the Litany’s said Then he’s off to his bed The prudent but profitless Browning St. Michael Rev.H. Macdougall My sixth’s the well loving Macdougall This last rouses black bile and blue gall If your voice is in trim Try his Jubilee Hymn And you’ll make some remarks on Macdougall “ 1886 By Messrs. Hailstone (tutor) and Harvey, (Organist, St. George) “ 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 The Stamford Terracotta Company (Blashfield’s) Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 In 1858, John Marriott Blashfield (1811-1882) transferred his terracotta manufacturing business from London to Stamford in order to exploit the local Jurassic clays which were particularly suitable for terracotta production. Blashfield took over the site of the former Grant’s Iron Foundry on Wharf Road (Fig. 1), [1] which was considerably larger than his London premises and whose position adjacent to the River Welland was convenient for bringing clay in and shipping terracotta out. The site included a 100-foot-long showroom along its north edge. Fig.1 Gate Arch to Blashfield’s works The business was re-named The Stamford Terracotta Company and the new works were officially opened on 14 March 1859. The lighting of the first kiln was attended by the Marchioness of Exeter and her family and a bust of Queen Victoria fired to mark the occasion was presented to the monarch the following day. A detailed review of the Blashfield’s company and the wider history of the terracotta industry was published in the Stamford Mercury on 18th Feb 1859. [2] Most of the clay that Blashfield’s used was from brickyards in the vicinity of Stamford, principally the Earl of Lindsey’s estate at Uffington, the Marquis of Exeter’s pit at Wakerley and Mr John Lumby’s field in Stamford, with much of the rest being sourced from further afield at Poole and Devon. [3] In 1858, Mr Blyth of Uffington advertised his field of red clay as being fit for the manufacture of moulded and plain bricks, paving tiles, ridge coping, ornamental and plain flower pots, vases, chimney shafts and pots. Blashfield’s range of products far exceeded this, its wares ranging from utilitarian items such as bricks (Fig.2), tiles and chimney pots to architectural dressings, classical ornaments, statues and other sculpted figures. Fig.2 A Blashfield brick (Old Frechevillian’s Brick Collection) Taking inspiration from artists and architects, Blashfield employed highly skilled sculptors and craftsmen to produce his ware. In addition, he collected hundreds of casts of both classical and contemporary work. While he may have been influenced by the designs of the Coadestone factory, it is inconclusive whether he bought any of its moulds after it ceased production in the early 1840s. His clay recipes which contained a complex blend of ingredients typified his scientific approach to terracotta production. By 1861 the company was employing 46 men and 13 boys. The business prospered and Blashfield designs won medals at the 1862 and 1867 Paris Exhibitions (Fig.3). Fig.3 Advertisement for Blashfield's Terracotta With the introduction of new models, the range of products had increased to over 1400 items by 1870, fired in four kilns. Blashfield’s published illustrations of its merchandise in a series of trade catalogues (Fig. 4). It became a limited company in 1872. Fig.4 Trade catalogues (Internet Archive Free Download) Blashfield’s wares were widely sold throughout England and overseas and his architectural and garden ornaments found their way into many country houses, including those at Burghley and Uffington. An allegorical figure of Literature (Fig.5) is on view at Burghley House and four large terracotta urns commissioned by the Marquis of Exeter form the centrepieces of the fountains in the South Gardens (Fig.6). The boathouse at the eastern end of the lake was also built by Blashfield’s. Fig.5 Allegorical figure of Literature (Burghley Collections. Ref EWA08621) Fig.6 Terracotta urn in Burghley’s South Gardens (Burghley House website) The whereabouts of most of the works of art and garden ornaments manufactured for the Earl of Lindsey from his own clay are unknown but Blashfield urns, probably based on a Coade design, still adorn the imposing gate piers (Fig.7) of his Uffington mansion which burnt down in 1904. Fig.7 One of a pair of Blashfield terracotta urns on the gateway to the lost Uffington House Blashfield’s products were used for both structural and decorative purposes in many properties in Stamford town but few examples remain. The most notable building is the grade-II- listed, former Scotgate Inn with its red terracotta facade (Fig.8(a)). 4 Another example is a shop at 30 High Street whose 1873 frontage contains five red terracotta panels amongst its detailing (Fig. 8(b)). Fig.8 (a) Former Scotgate Inn at 5 Scotgate, and (b) 30 High Street Despite its early successes and its strong international reputation, a combination of poor business practices, misfortune and competition from cheaper mass-produced terracotta. drove the company into voluntary liquidation. The Blashfield’s works closed in 1875 and its plant and stock were auctioned off. Blashfield died on 15 December 1882 after a short illness. The site of his factory on Wharf Road is now occupied by a residential development completed in 2007. Notes [1] In 1937 the arch was rebuilt several feet to the south and parallel with the road [2] ‘Art Manufactory in Lincolnshire. Terra Cotta Works at Stamford.’ The Lincolnshire, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. Friday, February 18, 1859, p.3 [3] Blashfield's was not the only terracotta manufacturer in Stamford. Henry Lumby had a production site in St Martin's in 1868 and 1872 and in 1863 Charles Joseph Whitton had a works in London Road. [4] Earlier used as a depot for P & R Phipps and now in commercial use. Bibliography ‘John Marriott Blashfield’. Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951. University of Glasgow History of Art and HATII, online database 2011 http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=ann_1263577621 HeritageGateway Lincolnshire HER. Blashfield Terracotta Factory, Wharf Road, Stamford. HER Number MLI30744 'Sectional Preface: Building Materials and Construction', in An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the Town of Stamford (London, 1977), pp. lxiv-lxix. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/stamford/lxiv-lxix The Gardens Trust. ‘Artificial Stone 4: Post-Coade potteries.’ https://thegardenstrust.blog/2016/08/13/artificial-stone-4-post-coade-potteries/ A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

the third manor of Stamford < Back St. Cuthbert's Fee in Stamford Dr E C Till 1982 This paper was written for the Stamford Historian by the late Dr E C Till. For this paper, the author has drawn on much original material in a attempt to remove some of the mysteries surrounding this obscure manorial court. St. Cuthbert’s Fee A manor with full administrative rights within the general area of a large town manor; such was St Cuthbert’s Fee. Peck (1) demonstrates its origins in the extensive grants of lands and tenements made to the cathedral priory of Durham, which maintained a cell at Stamford, later St. Leonard’s Priory. Writing in 1724 (2) he refers to ‘The two parishes of St Maries (by the bridge) within Stamford; all…. in the patronage of the prior and convent of Durham’, He postulates ‘a feast held by the aldermen and bretheren of Corpus Christi gild in their gild hall yet standing in the Monday mercat street’. (3) Stamford Baron Manor, south of the Welland, originally held by Peterborough Abbey but lost at the Reformation, was in Northamptonshire until the Boundary Act of 1832 when the built-up area was brought into Stamford Borough. It was granted to Sir William Cecil by Elizabeth in 1560 and was always tightly held and controlled by the Cecils. Stamford Manor, north of the Welland, from early times was a Royal manor and grants reverted to the Crown. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth granted it to Sir William Cecil. In 1622/3, his grandson, the second Earl of Exeter, secured a grant of the reversion. Being without male issue, he settled Stamford Manor in 1639 (the year before he died) upon the Earl of Stamford, who had married his youngest daughter Anne. More than a hundred years later, in 1747, it was purchased by the 8th Earl of Exeter for £6,950 and so returned to control by the Cecils, albeit in a somewhat tattered and diminished state. The manor of Cuthbert’s Fee, the third manor in Stamford, belonged in 1550 to Robert Hall.(4) By 1557/8 William Cecil was lord of the manor and probably purchased it from the Hall family. It was certainly a possession of the Cecils before Elizabeth’s grant of 1561, and remained with the Cecils after 1640. With the dissolution of the monasteries from 1536, it had been secured by the Crown Commissioners for the use of Henry VIII and was subject to the sales and leases that followed. From the Restoration in 1660, the Cecils and the Greys (Earls of Stamford) were politically opposed and much friction developed over the control of the two manors. This came to a crisis in the 1720’s when the 8th Earl of Exeter, a somewhat prickly nobleman, was prepared to act as plaintiff in a suit before the Court of Common Pleas. A draft of historical and current evidence was prepared (5) and this document is the only firm evidence to date of the extent and tenements of Cuthbert’s Manor. The actual Court rolls have not yet been discovered. The document states that it is ‘a distinct Manor and by the Court Rolls…. it appears to be a Court Leet and Court Baron and always swore a constable and aletaster but the extent of the Manor….nowhere appears, but waifs and strays and felons goods were taken within the said manor for the use of the Lord thereof as appears by the Rolls in 1550 and 1654. Actions for small debts… were … determined there as a Court Baron and a freehold house called the Bull Inn (6) particularly is held of the said manor and paid a Relief upon the death of the owners as appears … in 1557 and on and off a fine of 8 pence ….’ Until 1640, when the Greys inherited Stamford Manor, the Courts of Cuthbert’s Fee were usually kept at 3 – 4 years interval and it was convenient for the tenants of both manors to appear at one court. In 1640, the 3rd Earl of Exeter kept a separate court for Cuthbert’s Manor and thereafter ‘the inhabitants of St Mary’s parish were summoned yearly for a time and then every 3 or 4 years. By 1729, ‘Lord Stamford insists that the whole town is within his Manor and therefore his steward keeps court in St Mary’s parish (and) sets fines … upon the inhabitants there …. which Lord Exeter insists is within his manor of Cuthbert’s fee. Eventually, matters came to such a pass that the steward of Stamford Manor appointed a constable for St. Mary’s parish at the Court Leet and the inhabitants were summoned to perform their suit and service to Lord Stamford. The document states ‘By tradition and by best information we can get of the Antient inhabitants within the manor and elsewhere …. The said manor of Cuthbert’s Fee extends from Dr. Denham’s House at Castle Dyke (7) and takes in all St. Mary’s parish on both sides of Tenter Meadows and takes it in soon (i.e. after the interval imposed by the Blackfriars Estate) by St. Leonard’s to Uffington Mannor on the south side of the Way. Several other freehold houses and lands in different parts of the Town of Stamford belongs to this Mannor as a Court Baron’. To prove the active jurisdiction of Cuthbert’s Fee by the Earl of Exeter, a series of extracts of amerciaments (fines and penalties imposed by the Court) are given for the years 1722, 1724 and 1728/9. A selection of these extracts are given, as they enable the students of Stamford property deeds to locate some of the buildings within the jurisdiction of Cuthbert’s Manor. 1722 Fines varying from 2d – 1s 6d levied on ten persons for ‘laying loads wood on the waste ground in a place called the Tenter Mead’. Included are Simon Walberge ‘Doctor in Physick’ (8) and Boniface Bywater (9) Thomas Dawkins, gent, fined for laying unspread Ramell (rubbish, usually mason’s) in the same place. (10) Felix Feast ‘in the same place creating a Water Cut or Lake of Water adjoining to ye River Welland’, William Miller ‘for a wash pitt or Lyme Pitt on the same meadow near his house and also for a load of Dung in the same place’. (11) Ayscough Kirke for a Dunghill in the same place. (see also under g.) Hannah Curtis, spinster, Mary Curtis, spinster and Francis Peck, clerk, for ‘containing an incroachment in the common street called St. Mary’s Hill with two stone pillars adjoyning to the messuage in tenure of Mr John Rogers …’ (12) Felix Feast, Esq ‘for stopping the common highway with Posts sett up and placed at the messuage in the tenure of Ayscough Kirke in the parish of St. George’. (13) 1728/9 Thomas Doosley for depasturing his horse upon Blackwell’s Leys before the end of harvest. Thomas Sharman depasturing his horse upon grass before May day. Peter Symonds ‘for a wall on St. Mary’s Hill belonging to his messuage called The Bear and Ragged Staff’. (14) Robert Collington (15) ‘for a lake of water containing length 20 yds and in breadth 6 yds adjoining to the River Welland’. Thus the area of Cuthbert’s Fee in 1722, included substantial parts of St. John’s and St. George’s parishes in addition to a major part of St Mary’s parish. What is far from clear, is the extent to which the designated lands and property represent original ownership by Durham up to the Reformation. It seems probable that the Cecils for convenience tacked on sporadic acquisitions either or both before 1561 and after 1640. William Cecil, Lord Burghley, throughout his life dealt extensively in property, both buying and selling. For example, in 1551 he purchased from Sir Ralph Sadleyr and Laurence Wemington a job lot of chantry and ex-monastic property including St. Katherine’s chapel in Saltfleethaven, the site of St. John’s chapel in Louth, the chapel garth etc. in Ashby in Bottesford and the ‘Scholehouse’ in Stamford St. George’s.(16) This is the well recorded Carmelite school that according to Peck, lay ‘full east of the parsonage…’ Again, in another private purchase just before the Queen’s grant of Stamford Manor, William Cecil acquired a parcel of small areas of land in and around Stamford, including ‘Lands and tenements lyeing and being in the circuite …. of the Poche (i.e. parish) sometyme called the Poche of St. Andrew in Stamford…. ‘(17) A further problem lies in the possible existence of other small Stamford manors, merged but not forgotten in 1724, when the marriage settlement of the 8th Earl of Exeter mentions the ‘Manors (or reputed manors or estates) of Cuthbert’s Fee, Wake’s Fee and Barker’s Fee’.(18) The names of 61 tenants of these ‘Fees’ are given and almost all are surnames occurring in contemporary Stamford documents. This, then, is the latter-day history of Cuthbert’s Fee. Possibly the student of the chronology of parish boundaries in Stamford may be able to shed further light on this interesting problem. Notes Peck, Antiquarian Annals of Stamford , 1728. Lib II pp. 7-13 ibid Lib XIV pp. 6 and 7 Exeter MSS 86/5, contains a deed of 1652/3. This cites ‘a cellar under a Tenement called the Guildhall in Stamford … which … Queen Elizabeth … did grant unto Hercules Wytham and Francis Thekeyton of London … in … the two and fortieth year of the said Queens raigne’. The deeds are those of 4 St Mary’s Place and part of the undercoft still persists. Exeter MSS 54/1-5 ibid Lincolnshire Archive Office 1545/6, I, 17; ii, 137. The Bull Inn occupied a site in St. Mary’s Street on part of which the (former) Stamford Hotel now stands. Exeter MSS 85/8, dealing with properties on the south side of Castle Street, locates Dr. Denham’s house at the junction of Castle Street and Castle Dyke. The house was demolished after 1868 when Wright Waterfield lived there. Photographs of this medieval building still exist. In 1727, Mrs Walburge occupied a garden west of the Assembly Rooms. Exeter MSS 88/42. Boniface Bywater, whitesmith (also gunsmith and clock repairer) of 11/12 St. Mary’s Street c.1725 (Peck, A.A.S., Lib XI p.25 and Stukely, Surtees Soc . 76 (1836), p.324. From 1744-52 he lived in a tenement at the north east corner of St. John’s passage, part site of the present 36 St. Mary’s street. Exeter MSS 47/31/12. He owned a house on the site of the present 4 St. Mary’s Place. Exeter MSS 86/5 A fellmonger. In 1727 was living in 21 St George’s Sq. Exeter MSS 88/42 13 St Mary’s Hill (property deeds). John Rogers was ‘a doctor in physick’. 19 St. George’s Sq. (Peck A.A.S., 1728 Lib XI p.26). The raised plinth and a flight of stone steps in the NW cellar demonstrate the need for protection of the sunk area in the adjacent street. 13 St. Mary’s Hill (property deeds). Peter Symonds, sadler purchased the property in 1723 A coaldealer (Exeter Day Books). Exeter MSS 201/53 Exeter MSS 90/14 Exeter MSS 45/13 Glossary Manor : An area of land with tenements granted originally by the Crown in return for services rendered. The lord of the manor, in turn had the right to exact certain fees, fines and services from those who occupied his lands and tenements. The administration was expressed through the holding of periodic manorial courts, presided over by the lord or his steward. The court appointed its own officials – constables, aletasters, bailiffs etc. – and was largely independent of magistrate’s, assize and other courts of the English legal system. Court Baron : The assembly of the freehold tenants of a manor. Court Leet : A sort of record held periodically (in Stamford usually once a year) before the lord or his steward and attended by the residents of the manor. Fee : (e.g. St. Cuthbert’s Fee) a heritable estate held in feudal law of the Crown in condition of ‘homage and service’. Fine(s ): Usually, these were not punitive as modern usage suggests, but more in return for a licence to do certain things within the manor and its waste (ground). Thus it appears that Tenter Meadow was a town rubbish tip with its heaps of dung, wood and builders ramell. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Searchlight on Land, Labour and Social Problems 1903 Burghley House by Stamford Town By John Taylor. Author of “Social Sermonettes for Working Men.” “The Marquis of Exeter, of Burghley House, Stamford, owns 13,545 acres of land in Northamptonshire, with a rent roll of £21,015 a year. He is also the owner of 10,712 acres in Rutlandshire, with a rental of “16,389 yearly. And in Lincolnshire he has 3.327 acres, with a rent roll of £10,808 yearly.” New Domesday Book 1903. When I come across a proud aristocrat who owns 27,684 acres of land that God gave us all, and who has an income of £48,212 a year from that land, I naturally want to know how he came into the possession of all that land, why he should be allowed to keep it, and what return he is giving to the community for all the money he is taking out of his fellow men’s pockets. It was in this spirit of inquiry that I took train from Peterborough one morning, and went to see for myself what the ancient Royal Borough of Stamford is like, and to unearth some interesting facts from its history. After the dissolution of the monasteries and the confiscation of the abbey lands the manor of Stamford fell into the hands of the ancestors of the present Marquis of Exeter. His family traces its descent from William Cecil of Bourne, in Lincolnshire, who became Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, and was elevated to the peerage under the title of Baron Burghley. Enormous grants of Crown lands, and many Enclosure Acts, and a few prudent marriages with rich heiresses will easily account for the vast accumulation of land in this fortunate family. A Victorian view of the South Side of Burghley House “Burghley House by Stamford town” is one of the ancestral homes of England, and, like Chatsworth House and Eaton Hall, is a show place, where you can be admitted to feast your eyes on payment of a shilling. It is a magnificent place, stored with tapestries, and needlework, and pictures and bric-a-brac, and works of art, and antique furniture enough to last a score of connoisseurs a life time. The house is only a short pleasant walk from the town, and it stands in its own park of fourteen hundred acres. Burghley Park is stocked with deer, and plentifully studded with chestnuts, oaks, and lime trees. On a fine sunny day, it must be a delightful attractive spot, but the day I was there the river was in flood, and the rain was coming down in torrents, and every tree under which you tried to shelter gave you a heavy shower bath. If you want to know what militant landlordism can do to ruin a town you should walk through the streets of Stamford, and use your eyes and ears. It is a quaint old-fashioned place, full of churches, and beer houses, and alms-houses, and in the good old times it must have been a perfect nest of political venality and corruption. The unreformed Parliament sent two members to the House of Commons, and the “Spectator” of those days tells us how prize-fighters and bullies were hired in London at five shillings a day, all found, and were turned loose on the electors of Stamford to dragoon them to the polling booths. The free and independent voters tore their clothes from their backs, and broke their heads, and obliged them to seek shelter in a malthouse to save their lives. When the election was over the Marquis of Exeter of those days served notice to quit on all his tenants who had not voted for his nominees, and he warned all the widows and spinsters who held land or houses under him that they would be evicted, too, if they did not get married before the next election, and find husbands who would vote as they were told. But the crowning disaster came to this little town when the Marquis of Exeter opposed the Great Northern Railway scheme for carrying the line through Stamford. It was proposed to construct a line of railway and build a station within a few hundred yards of his park gates, but he raised a terrible row about this proposal. He resisted the scheme both in the House of Commons and outside, and flung away his money so recklessly that the company withdrew their scheme, and built their line about four miles away. His chief objection to a railway was that it would injure his property in the town and put an end to the coaching and posting business at the George Hotel. When the railway had passed him by and left him severely alone, he was glad to build a line of railway nearly four miles in length to link his forsaken town with the railway at Essendine. Stamford has never recovered from this terrible disaster, and it never will. The engine, carriage works and repairing shops that would have enriched it were taken to Peterborough instead and they will never come back. The principal industries of the town are a small foundry and agricultural implement shop, some breweries and saw mills, and one or two large timber yards. The population is only eight thousand, and it is stationary or declining. It has a sewerage scheme on hand that will cost £50,000, and that is a big undertaking for so small a town. It works out to more that six pounds per head for every man, woman, and child in the place. About two hundred new houses have been built in Stamford during the last few years, and yet the population is less now than it was before they were built. Those new houses were built to replace some vile rookeries and filthy slums that have been pulled down. But nothing can galvanise the sleepy, mildewed, medieval town into life and vigour and progress. It has had some fine opportunities and some splendid chances, but it was never ready when its opportunity came. Source Cotton Factory Times November 6th 1903 p7/c1-2 Notes. The Cotton Factory Times (1885-1937) was a Socialist newspaper aimed at cotton workers in Lancashire and Cheshire. Using an online CPI calculator; £48,212 in 1903 is worth £7,491,401 in 2025. In pure cash terms 48,212 gold sovereigns at present prices (May 2025) would be worth close to £28.4 million. The calculated income in this article does not include any profits from the Burghley Estate property portfolio. A Print copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back CATHOLIC CHAPEL IN STAMFORD 1851. Parish of All Saints. Submitted by Chris Hunt Erected February 1834. Separate building. Used exclusively as a place of divine worship. Free sittings, Yes. On 30th March (1851). In morning General Congregation 170., Sunday School 51. Remarks. The number of Catholics attached to this mission may on a fair average be estimated at about four hundred, but owing to a variety of causes, say, distance and want of decent apparel a regular attendance cannot be expected. Signed Thomas J. O’Connor, Catholic Priest, Incumbent Source Lincolnshire Returns of the Census of Religious Worship 1851. Edited by R.W.Ambler, M.A. Published by the Lincoln Record Society Volume 72 (1979) page 3. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next