< 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

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

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

< Back The Stamford Deviation Mike Sockett 2018 There is a common assertion that the Great Northern Railway planned for their route to come through, or near to, Stamford and that it was the objection of the Marquis of Exeter that stopped this. However there is evidence that this was not the case and is certainly not the whole picture. In May 1844 the GNR proposed a route through Peterborough and a meeting was held in Stamford to lobby for a ‘deviation’ that would take the railway near the town, with a station at Newstead. By August the GNR had decided against the deviation, though the people of Stamford continued campaigning. It seems that the Marquis of Exeter initially supported this deviation but by 1846 had withdrawn his support and then become an active opponent. There is s letter in the Mercury on June 14th 1847 which is a clear attack on Exeter accusing him of being a hypocrite. In this it is asserted that when the deviation was proposed Exeter actually drew a line of the railway on the map and made sure it would pass through his land! It is then asserted that when the GNR refused to give him the price he was asking for his land he withdrew his support and instructed his Parliamentary nominee Granby to remove from the Bill all references to the Stamford deviation. As the letter is signed by ‘a person’ this was clearly a political issue – there was general election the following month. A Committee of the House of Commons had considered the issue of the deviation and gave their reasons for refusal on June 8th 1847, here addressing the role of the Marquis of Exeter: “….it may well have weighed with the Committee to consider whether they would sanction anything which could in any way injure or detract from the noble, and princely, and historical domain of Burghley…..these cases were by no means the grounds for our decision. It was a matter of public not private interest which swayed us in the judgement at which we arrive.” The Committee also dealt clearly with the whole issue of whether the deviation was in the general interest: “…..as the station intended for them by the Great Northern was to be upwards of a mile from the town of Stamford, they would still have that distance to go to gain the GN, thereby gaining an advantage of only three miles, while the rest of England travelling on that line and not intending to stop at Stamford, would be carried nearly two miles out of their course by the proposed deviation; and it came therefore to a nice account for the Committee to settle between Stamford and all the rest of the travelling world, whether the people of Stamford should go three miles out of their way or all other travellers two miles. It was, as it were, a fair match between Stamford on the one side and all England and Scotland on the other; we thought that England had it.” There are two interpretations of the role of Burghley in this: Firstly that he did not want the GNR through Stamford, but supported the campaign of the town to keep in with its citizens (and voters!). His support is referred to as ‘luke warm’ in one source. Secondly that he did want Stamford on the GNR because it would be very profitable for him, but he miscalculated the price the company was willing to pay for his land. It would seem that the idea of the GNR passing through, or near to, Stamford was never part of the railway company’s plan and it was always referred to as a ‘deviation’, ie a deviation from the preferred route through Peterborough and Tallington. For a map of railway routes in the Stamford area that shows the line of the deviation proposal see Martin Smith, ‘Stamford Then and Now’, (1992), page 120. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

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

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

< Back In The Star and Garter at Stamford and the 1851 Census By Mike Key John Garfoot stood behind his bar in the Star and Garter in Scotgate watching the activity. As usual at the beginning of the Mid-Lent fair week the room was busy with friends meeting and strangers arriving for accommodation. The bar-room buzzed with conversation. Over in one corner William Smith from Sewston discussed the prices to be expected at tomorrow’s beast market with fellow cattle dealer John Custon from Boston. At another table Robert Edwards, a cordwainer, sat relaxing after his journey from Nantwich in Cheshire, perhaps complimenting Elizabeth, the publican’s wife on her cooking. It may be that John Adams, a Crowland potato merchant, was suggesting that it was his potatoes that gave the meal an extra something. Around the room the noise of chatter rose and fell. Some talked about the weather, always a popular subject. Others perhaps argued over the forthcoming opening of the Great Exhibition in London’s Hyde Park. Some doubtless agreed with Colonel Sibthorp, Lincoln’s Tory Member of Parliament, that ‘ … It would be better for the promoters of this affair to encourage native industry, and support the industrious people of England, from whom they draw all they possess.’ A more immediate topic for argument was the census. Oh! Such questions! ‘Why do they want to know?’ ‘Place of birth? Surely it’s where you live that’s important.’ ‘Whose business is it anyway?’ ‘Ever since that Reform Bill nineteen years ago there has been increased Government Interference.’ And so on. The same arguments over the census had been going on for more than fifty years now, fears of misuse of the information gained by the State, or its enemies. Over all the comings and goings publican John Garfoot presided, ensuring that all were looked after and catered to, joining in with this or that conversation. But Garfoot had something on his mind, that extra chore among all the others after closing the door for the last time that evening. That confounded schedule pushed under his door a few days previously had to be filled in. For this was Sunday, March 30 th 1851, the night for the census to be taken. Before considering how the census was taken in Stamford, it is worth taking a brief look at the history of the national census and the associated legislation. The story of the national census is one of development through improved efficiency, care, and thoroughness. In 1753 proposals had been laid before Parliament to undertake a census of population and were met with violent opposition. Indeed, the passing of the Militia Act in 1757 which called for lists of eligible males, had met with severe rioting in some areas of the country. In 1753 fears were expressed that such knowledge that a census would provide could be used by our enemies to their advantage. Also, internal forces could bring political pressures to bear. The latter was probably more of a threat than the former, for the census, when eventually set up, paved the way for both political and economic reform. By 1800 much of the old opposition had been overcome and the Population Act of that year provided for the taking of the national census in 1801. The aims of this first census were to discover not only how many inhabitants Great Britain contained, but also whether the population was increasing or decreasing. To uncover this information two major questions, to be answered by the Clergy, were included in the first schedule; Star & Garter ‘What was the number of Baptisms and Burials in your Parish, Township, or place in the several years 1700, 1710, 1720, 1730, 1740, 1750, 1760, 1770, 1780, and each subsequent year to the 31 st December 1800, distinguishing Males from Females?’ And: - ‘What was the number of marriages in your Parish, Township, or Place in each year, from year 1754 inclusive to the end of the year 1800?’ The results from these two questions, which were published in the Parish Register Abstracts, led to the 1812 Parish Register Act. Although the keeping of parish registers had been obligatory since 1538, inconsistencies had arisen due to the varied means of entry. This was partly overcome by the Marriage Act of 1753, whereby the officiating minister had to register each marriage and to have the entry witnessed by at least two persons. The 1812 Act sought to regularize the keeping of registers of both public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials. An important section of the Act required Ministers to send to their Diocesan Registrar a list of all registers in the parish showing dates of the beginning and end, as well as where they were to be deposited. Because the results were disappointing, a list of registers was required by the 1831 Population Act. All these various measures enabled Government to be informed on population trends. In the four census years prior to 1841, census taking was a long and tortuous process, taking days, weeks in some areas, for the returns to be completed and sent to the Justices of the Peace. They were then passed to the High Constables for endorsement and submitted to the Town Clerks who then sent them to the office of the Principal Secretary of State of the Home Office for digestion. With the Population Act of 1840 the task of taking the census passed to the Registrar General. Using the organisation set up in 1837 for the civil registration of births, marriages and deaths, the Registrar General aimed to take a complete and accurate count in one day. In 1837 England and Wales was divided into 2,193 Registration Districts under the 1836 Act, these for purposes of the census were further divided into Enumeration Districts. Additionally, the country was divided into County Divisions made up of several counties. Because of varying circumstances, Enumeration Districts were limited to between 25 to 200 inhabited houses, and this led, because of many sparsely populated areas, to about 35,000 enumerators being employed. For 1851 the enumerators were equally numerous. Until 1841 the householder had but two or three questions to answer, age (to nearest five years), sex, and occupation. The Clergy and the Overseers of the Poor had the responsibility of providing information regarding housing, baptisms, etc. The scope of questions was extended in 1841 requiring the householder to furnish information on birthplace, nationality (if Irish or Scots), and whether he or she was an employer or an employee. The range of questions was further extended in 1851: the exact age of each person; their relationship to the head of the household; and condition as to marriage, birthplace, and nationality, (not just Irish or Scots). There was an additional section to be answered on a voluntary basis regarding religion and education which a minority refused to answer. In order to avoid omission and duplications, each householder was directed to complete the schedule himself in respect of each person sleeping in his house on the designated night. To ensure this was done, any ‘person refusing or neglecting to fill up the schedule without excuse or refusing to answer questions or making a false return is liable to a penalty of £1 to £5. Allowance was made for the illiterate, ‘If no person in the house is able to fill up the schedule properly, it will be done by the enumerator.’ 1851 Census for St John’s Parish The decennial returns called for in the 1801 census set the pattern for future legislation. Every tenth year until 1920 an Act of Parliament was necessary for a national population census to be taken. The 1920 Population Act provided for the census to be carried out every tenth year without further legislation. And so, in future years, we shall be called upon to fill in our schedules ‘according to the instructions’ as our forebears have done. No doubt some of us will be raising the old objections regarding misuse of information and the invasion of privacy. Now let us return to the 1851 Stamford to the Enumeration District of St John’s parish. On the morning of Monday, March 31 st , Mr Pheasant John Freeman, one of the seventeen enumerators appointed to the Stamford District, began his rounds to collect his completed forms. It would be a long day. He had already been over the ground the previous week delivering the schedule and explaining to householders what was needed. Today he would still have forms to fill in for the illiterate and the infirm. Having collected the completed forms, next day Mr Freeman would begin to transfer the answers to his own schedule. This was a time-consuming job. Many of the forms would be difficult to read because there was a high rate of illiteracy in the parish. Also, this year, the forms were more complicated than before. No doubt he cursed the authorities’ decision to hold the census in Mid-Lent Fair week. There were so many strangers in town. Nevertheless, he finished his part of the task by April 8 th , and together with the householders’ form he passed his completed schedule to Henry Whittome, the District Registrar. Whittome in turn examined the documents and, having verified the account and corrected any mistakes, sent them on to the Town Hall and the Superintendent Registrar, Jeremiah Clapton. After Clapton’s examination they were forwarded to the Registrar General’s Office in London on April 25 th . This sequence of events was taking place all over the country, and the success of this method is evident by its continued use today, all be it with the inclusion of computers. The efficiency and speediness of the process was not, however, appreciated by the local newspaper. In the April 18 th issue, the Stamford Mercury complained that, ‘We are unable to give the numbers of the existing population as the officers being unwilling to furnish the account.’ At this time Henry Whittome was still working his way through the enumerators’ schedules. The Mercury went on to say that the return for Slingsby was 866 and that for Sibsey near Boston was 3.387, overlooking the fact that the population of Stamford was about three times that of Sibsey. The Mercury also got its arithmetic wrong, increasing Sibsey’s population by 90, something even the village blacksmith would have found difficult. His family had increased in size by six since 1841, accounting for half the total population increase of the village. According to the Mercury a real increase in the town’s population was not to be expected: ‘Although several new houses have been built upon the Brownlow property at the east end of the town, there are several large houses in the other parts of the borough untenanted.’ When the figures were published the population was found to be 9,066 an increase of 1,306 over the 1841 total. This of course included those who came to the town for the fair. But the census is not just about growth or decline of population, it is about people. Who they were, and how they lived, and how they earned a living. The census is a valuable research tool for the local historian, provided its limitations are realised. George North wrote; ‘The essential picture of the sort of people we are is built up from two main sources, the periodic Census of population, which gives a national snapshot at the particular moment of time, and the regular flow of statistical information based on statutory registration of births, marriages and death.’ It is the concept of a particular moment of time that gives the clue to the limits of usefulness of the census. Just as the census is about people so is history, but it is not static. It is also about change, social, economic, and political. ‘Time change’ is the saying. It is often difficult to project ourselves back in time because definitions also change. An example of this may be seen in the modern definition of ‘pauper’ as one without means of livelihood, a beggar perhaps in receipt of poor relief. An American observer writing on the English scene in 1830 defined paupers as, ‘that numerous class of society who depend for subsistence solely upon the labour of their hands.’ Not quite the same thing. None of this entered John Garfoot’s head as he sat quietly in his now deserted bar-room on that Sunday evening so long ago. He looked over the census form yet again. It seemed straight forward enough. Names, age, birthplaces, relations to head of household. Yes, easy enough. Wait though, relation to head of house …. mm! What about William Smith and John Custon and the others? Are they lodgers or visitors? They are here for the Fair, that makes them visitors, or does it? When does a visitor become a lodger? What’s the difference anyway? Who’ll care a hundred years from now? Publican Garfoot would have been amazed to learn that his customers’ worries about the census would echo down through the years, and that his place in history was assured by his entry on the census return. Who’ll care a hundred years from now? A group of Stamford history students a century and more cared enough to put John Garfoot and his contempories in their historical and social place by a study of the 1851 population census. Notes This article was first published in 1980 in; Class and Occupation in Stamford in 1851. A Report by the Stamford Survey Group. A copy of the full report is available for study in the Local Reference Section of Stamford Library. The pub, sited at No. 10 Scotgate, closed in 1967, and was shortly demolished along with the adjacent Fire Station which had previously been Hayes’ Carriage Works showroom to make room for the Scotgate Car Park. A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back EDWARD & FRANCIS BUTT By Martin R Warburton There have been three major shortages of regal coins in the last five hundred years: - of copper coins in the mid-seventeenth century, which led to the emergence of unofficial copper farthings by traders and town councils. They are usually referred to as seventeenth century tokens. - of copper coins in the late eighteenth century, leading to the production of copper traders’ tokens; mostly farthings and halfpennies. These are often referred to as eighteenth century provincial tokens or ‘Conders’ after the first listing of them by James Conder of Ipswich who both issued and collected the tokens himself. - of silver coins in the early nineteenth century, which led to Bank of England tokens for three shillings, eighteenpence and ninepence, together with traders’ tokens for denominations up to five shillings. Each of these events led to a significant increase in the Royal Mint production of copper coins under Charles I and George III and, in the case of silver coins, to the great silver and gold recoinage of 1816. This article is concerned with the silver nineteenth century tokens. There are 17 silver tokens listed for Lincolnshire towns in Dalton’s The Silver Token Coinage of 1811 & 1812 published in 1922. Stamford has two varieties of an eighteenpence token; D17 illustrated above and D16 which is very similar, but the crown is larger and not radiated. Both tokens were issued by Edward and Francis Butt, and are considered rare. There is much online about Edward and Francis, and what follows is no more than a brief summary of their lives. Edward and Francis were probably brothers, or possibly cousins. Both were born in the late 18th century. Edward married Elizabeth Sculthorpe; Francis married Ann Welby in 1808. Edward had two sons Edward (b.1799) and Francis (b.1807), while Francis had at least one child – Francis (b.1812). These three children would have been too young to have produced the token in 1811, so we are concerned with their fathers. Edward purchased his Freedom of the Borough in 1799, and Francis in 1810. Both were described as Drapers and were probably in business together, although when Edward retired in 1823 his business as a Linen and Woollen Draper in the High Street passed to a Mr Beasley. Both Edward and Francis published their support in The Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury of July 15, 1814 for Johnson & Eaton’s Bank in Stamford. Both Edward and Francis were Mayors of Stamford; Edward in 1828 and Francis in 1834, 1835 and 1840. Edward died in about 1835 in Stamford. Francis, described as a Mayor and Magistrate, died on 19th February 1840 apparently of apoplexy before or after falling from his horse Ivanhoe. Many thanks for assistance go to Chris Hunt of the Stamford Local History Society. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next