< Back Rate Book 1836 Alan Rogers 2017 STAMFORD IN 1836: A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RATE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOWN. INTRODUCTION: THE TOWN OF STAMFORD IN 1836: BOROUGH RATE BOOK In the Town Hall archives at Stamford is a survey of the whole borough (including St Martin’s parish) of 1836. It consists of six separate books giving the rateable value of every property in the six parishes of the town. The books are standard with printed columns with name of occupier, name of owner, nature of the property (house, garden, shop etc), its location in the town (usually by street but not street number), and rateable value. The survey was conducted by two eminent land agents in the town, Bryan Browning (architect, responsible for Barn Hill House, Bourne Town Hall and Folkingham Castle [1] ) and William Hack [2]; but there were also others involved, for several of the books have a note to say that these pages were ‘examined by EWC’. The books are well preserved and written on the whole clearly although the scribe, who seems to have copied from original schedules, had some peculiarities of handwriting which on occasion makes it difficult to determine a name exactly - especially capital letters. Many first names are abbreviated and are not always clear; and ‘Mr’, ‘Mrs’ and ‘Ms’ are not always distinguishable. It would seem that occasionally the surveyors guessed at the spelling of a name or used a variant spelling different from (for example) the contemporary Pigot’s Directory (1835). Mallory Lane is often (but not always) given as ‘Mannerly Lane’. The books have had pencil additions from time to time and some entries have the writing ‘qu’ against them [query]; some blanks have been filled in in pencil, names of occupants and especially owners have been changed, and valuations changed (almost always downwards); these are in italics in this transcript as far as they can be read. It is not known when these changes were made. Not all these pencil additions are legible. The assessors or the copyist have made one or two errors in transcription - these are noted in the footnotes. [1] Royal Commission of Historical Monuments, Stamford 1976 p lxxxiv for brief biography; it seems Browning had not yet moved into Stamford’; he is not in Pigot’s Directory of 1835. [2] Searches have not yet revealed anything about Hack. While most of the books have page numbers, some do not. We have added page numbers to our transcript where they do not exist in the original for ease of reference. On occasion, the writers have made an error in the page numbering - these are indicated in the footnotes. The enormous value of this record - a house-by-house survey of the whole town with occupant, owner and usage in 1836 - cannot be overestimated. Not all the owners of course were resident; and it is possible that some of those listed as occupiers (i.e. the actual ratepayers) may perhaps be tenants who have sub-let the property, but on the whole it would seem that they were in fact real occupants. And the nature and location of each property is also of great value. This was just before the major expansion of the town in the later nineteenth century, but new building can be seen at the bottom of Empingham Road near Rock Terrace (Stamford New Town). This survey can be compared with the very detailed Knipe’s map of 1833. In addition, the location of some of the properties in the streets may be identified by comparing this survey (especially the large number of properties listed as belonging to Browne’s Hospital) with the full and very detailed survey of all the Hospital’s properties in 1845 [also available as a .pdf from the Stamford and District Local History Society]; in this 1845 survey, each of Browne’s Hospital properties is located with a map giving the owners of adjacent properties. This transcript was typed by Peter Tomalin of Lyddington from a photocopy of the rate books held by the Stamford Survey Group (now the Stamford and District Local History Society); but some additional material was provided by John Hopson, Hon. Archivist to the Borough Council. It has been checked by Alan Rogers and John Hartley. We are immensely grateful to these people and to the Borough Council for helping with making this available. The importance of the borough archives and their accessibility for promoting the history of the town cannot be over-estimated. In this format, these records can now be searched easily for personal names or inns or other features of Stamford’ s early nineteenth century history. page Parish of All Saints 1 Parish of St George 29 Parish of St John 49 Parish of St Martin 65 Parish of St Mary 78 Parish of St Michael 83 A PDF of the transcript of the Rate Book can be accessed HERE Previous Next

Wilson Watchmaking Family BACK CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE IN FULL The Wilson Watchmaking Family This image shows an antique gilt full-plate verge fusee pocket watch movement signed "Jos. Wilson, Stamford," featuring an intricately pierced and engraved scroll-pattern balance cock and a regulation dial marked for slow and fast adjustments. The movement originates from an early 19th-century English pocket watch made by a local horologist in Stamford. It uses a verge escapement paired with a fusee cone to equalize the mainspring's decreasing torque as it unwinds. The signature "Jos. Wilson, Stamford" represents a notable family lineage of watch and clockmakers active in Lincolnshire during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Wilson Watchmaking Family Joseph (Jos.) Wilson, the maker of this movement was a skilled watchmaker, clockmaker, and silversmith and took over his uncle James's business and registered his own mark in Stamford around 1818. Horological records list him as active between 1818 and 1868. The Family Business, Joseph was the nephew of James Wilson, an established Stamford clockmaker who worked from 1786 to 1799 before partnering with Thomas Haynes until 1803. Joseph succeeded his uncle's workshop and expanded the family business. Regional Network, The Wilsons were part of a prolific three-brother horological network (including Ralph and Robert Wilson) that operated highly successful workshops across Stamford, Bourne, Peterborough, and Spalding. During the early 19th century, provincial English watchmakers like Joseph Wilson often ordered raw movement blanks ( ébauches ) from specialized material makers in industrial hubs like Lancashire or Coventry. They would then finish, custom-engrave, assemble, adjust, and sign the movements. DOWLOAD PDF Previous Next

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

< Back 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 Peterborough GNR Loco v Stamford Rutland Ironworks November 9th 1895 Chris Hunt The Ironworks journeyed to Peterborough on Saturday to fulfil their engagement with the Loco team. There was not a large attendance considering the great rivalry that exists between these old opponents. The teams were composed as follows: Ironworks . – Goal, Morris; backs, Rudkin and Middleton; half-backs, Avery, T.Braunston and Glithero; right wing, C.Atter and Pentelow; centre, Burcombe; left wing, Miller and J.Atter. Loc. – Goal, Shaw; backs, Randall and Palmer; half-backs, Pearson, F.Palmer and Bean; right wing, Cannon and Darnill; centre, Fox; left wing, Burbage and Garner. Referee, Mr Carter. The home team won the toss, and the Reds had to face the breeze in the first half. The opening exchanges were in the favour of the visitors, whose forwards displayed admirable combination. Burbage early showed up well, and from him alone did it appear that much danger was likely to ensue. J.Atter and Miller passed nicely down the left and the sphere was lifted over to the right. C.Atter secured and with a clinking shot drew first blood for the Reds. A few minutes later the homesters were giving Rudkin and Middleton plenty of employment. The first mentioned back dropped the sphere down the right wing and C.Atter, getting the better of a tussle with Palmer and Randall, was on the point of shooting at very close range when he was ruled off-side, most unfairly, as he had beaten three opponents. Following this piece of work, the referee awarded a corner against Avery, who was yards from the ball. The visitors showed great dissatisfaction at this, but matters reached a climax a few minutes later when a home forward standing almost under the cross-bar slipped the leather into the net from a shot by a half-back at long range. In spite of all protestations to the contrary, the referee adjudged this point to be a legitimate one. These most disgraceful decisions caused RUCTIONS and a lively scene ensued. The visitors decided to take no further part in the contest, but did not leave the field. They kicked the ball off from the centre, but offered no opposition to the homesters, who under the personal direction of the referee took the leather down the field and put in between the Reds’ sticks. The important but perverse functionary whose abominable decisions had caused this miserable state of affairs informed the Loco players that they must be careful not to get “off-side". J.Atter took exception to this mode of procedure, but was politely requested to “shut up”. The spectators were talking in knots on the playing piece, and Mr J.Atter, town clerk of Stamford, and the father of the left winger, stepped on to the field with a view of pointing out duties of a referee to the “knight of the whistle”, but he was ordered off and promptly complied with the request. The Ironworks simply kicked the ball when necessary to keep it in play, such as in the case of goal-kicks and throwing in, and by so doing did not lay themselves open to the charge of leaving the field without the referee’s permission. Several of the home players had adjourned to the neighbouring pub to discuss the matter, but were ordered to resume their position on the field and were cautioned. Again was a farcical order of the referee complied with, and the Loco took the ball down the field and scored a fourth point. Half time arrived with the score reading Peterborough Loco 1 goal Rutland Ironworks 1 goal Referee 3 goals. The forty-five minutes in the second half were whiled away by the players in any way they chose, as long as they remained on the ground. Pipes were lighted and discussions friendly and otherwise took place. Before the players were allowed to leave the field the darkness spread its mantle over the scene, and stars became visible. A more unsatisfactory game can scarce be imagined, and it is evident that scenes of a similar but milder nature are not rare on the Loco ground, as the spectators acquainted the visitors that they were as bad as Boston and Spalding. ************ The Stamford and Rutland Guardian’s football comments in 1895 were written under the by-line ‘Half –Backs’ and he stated that: The “game” at Peterborough on Saturday, “Ironworks v Peterborough G.N.Loco”, was a perfect fiasco, and it is high time that the Association interfered in the matter of referees. It is only fair to the Loco players to say that the majority of them were equally disgusted with the decisions of the ruling official. Note The above article appeared in the Stamford and Rutland Guardian of Friday November 15th 1895. It shows that criticisms today’s crowds express about referring decisions are nothing new. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) John Daffurn 2023 On 22 March 1842, a large crowd gathered in the sunshine outside of the Stamford Institution in Broad Street. Together with the great and good of the town they eagerly awaited the arrival of the Marquess of Exeter accompanied by his sons, the Lords Burghley and Brownlow. The Stamford Institution had been formed four years earlier and the Marquess, as patron of the Institution, was due to lay the foundation stone for a new purposely designed building on St Peter’s Hill. A procession lined up, headed by a banner and a band, and followed by; the architect (Bryan Browning) and the builder (Moses Peal); the Marquess and the mayor (Joseph Phillips); the president of the Institution (Dr W L Hopkinson) and the vicar of All Saints church (Rev N Walters); followed by a group of clergy, magistrates, aldermen, burgesses, councillors and members of the Institution ( Lincolnshire Chronicle , 25.3.1842 [ LC ]). Amongst the latter assortment were Councillor Richard Newcomb and Alderman Thomas Mills, who feature below. The foundation-laying party left Broad Street and processed down Ironmonger Street, along the High Street, across Red Lion Square and up All Saint’s Street to St Peter’s Hill. On arrival the band played, and a local choir sang, the National Anthem before the proceedings were opened with prayers from Rev Walters. The foundation stone was duly laid by the Marquess, during which the bronze trowel snapped, and Dr Hopkinson spoke to the assembled crowd. It is not reported how many speeches took place, but the only two reported were those of Dr Hopkinson and Richard Newcomb, the latter of which was unplanned by the organising committee. Newcomb, by 1842, was firmly in the Radical camp and an adversary of the Cecil family and this was alluded to in his speech which hijacked the occasion. In it he mentioned that “although it [Stamford Institution] had secured very high patronage it was originally projected and established by those who did not occupy the highest stations in life — by two or three individuals whom it would be perhaps invidious to name” ( LC , 25.3.1842). A following column in the Lincolnshire Chronicle of the same date commented that the event had passed off satisfactorily “…except the tainted address of an orator whose speech seemed combined of a desire to avail himself of the opportunity to show off…”; an obvious dig at Newcomb. The idea to create a new society began in 1837, or possibly earlier, and would have involved the two or three gentlemen alluded to by Newcomb, and may have included Newcomb himself. The idea was to provide a library, museum, and reading and lecture rooms, in order to disseminate literature, science and the arts to a wide audience. The Newcomb family had previous in this regard, as Richard’s father had set up a subscription library in his bookshop on the High Steet in January 1787, and remained its librarian until 1807. However, there appears to have been tensions leading up to the Institution’s formation in 1838 as it was reported, in May of that year, that “Almost every difficulty which naturally presented itself to the formation of this very desirable society has, we are happy to say, been overcome…” ( LC , 23.5.1838). During that month, the provisional committee convinced Dr W L Hopkinson, previously mayor of Stamford, to become President, and pressure was applied on the Town Council to call a public meeting at the Town Hall. It was at that meeting on 5 June that resolutions were passed, and officers and members of the provisional committee were named. The committee included Richard Newcomb, Alderman Mills and John Bentley, a bank cashier who was named at the meeting as one of the originators ( Stamford Mercury, 8.5.1838 [ SM ]). In the following months, the development of the nascent Institution was reported in every detail in the Lincolnshire Chronicle , but not in Newcomb’s Stamford Mercury , and later, in 1838, Newcomb’s name no longer featured as a member of the committee. Furthermore, Newcomb’s name was conspicuously absent on the published list of donations, suggesting a falling out over the way forward. At the beginning of November 1838, the committee proudly announced that they had taken over a property in Broad Street which would shortly be ready as the home of the Stamford Institution ( LC , 2.11.1838). The address of this property can now be revealed as 49 Broad Street (currently part of Barclays Bank). The 1841 census named Thomas Blades as caretaker, a position he continued after the move to St Peter’s Hill. Also residing in the building in 1841 was John Bentley, the committee member mentioned above. Nevertheless, the identity of the building remained elusive, until its use or occupants were traced backwards and forwards from 1838, the detail of which is included in the Appendix below. 49 Broad Street (far right) The building was built in 1770 by John Truman (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, The Town of Stamford, [148]) and it is through the Truman family that the trail in the appendix begins. However, within the one-hundred-year search for the occupants of the Broad Street building other information has been uncovered. The property had been used as a school for many years, but in 1829 the property became empty when Mr Gilbert failed to take over the school from Mr Wragge, despite an advertisement to the contrary (Appendix, 1828 ). By 1830, the property had been taken over by a new, Tory leaning newspaper, the Bee , which some say was financed by the Marquess of Exeter. Its editor was Thomas Fernandez Clarke, previously with Farley’s Bristol Journal, who took up residence in the building, which also housed the printing presses. Although the editor’s name was known and published, the identity of the proprietor/publisher was more circumspect. However, hidden in one of the endnotes of Newton and Smith’s history of the Stamford Mercury (Newton, 153) is a reference to an article which provides a clue. The article describes Mr Mills of the Town Council as “a principal proprietor of the late newspaper called the Bee ” (SM, 14.10.1836), but the subject matter of the piece is also important as it refers to a major disagreement, and turmoil, at an earlier Town Council meeting. This throws some light on Newcomb’s later antipathy for the Institution and his unplanned speech at the laying of the foundation stone. The opening sentences of the piece highlight the indignation of the Mercury and therefore Newcomb: The rancour and desperation of the Tories have rarely been more exemplified than in the following paragraph, which appeared in the English Chronicle (London paper) of Tuesday last: “The Town Council of Stamford have passed a vote of censure on the conduct of Mr. Newcomb, a Councillor, and most ultra Radical, for his factious conduct at their meetings; and they have designated its general tenour as ‘ungentlemanly and unbecoming.’— Lincolnshire Chronicle.” No such false statement, we believe, has appeared in the Lincolnshire Chronicle… The so-called vote of censure relates to the Town Council meeting of 1 October ( SM , 7.10.1836) which was reported in detail. In short, it involved the inability of the mayor, Dr Hopkinson, to control the meeting called to elect Aldermen for each ward. The meeting descended into farce when Newcomb referred to the mayor as Dr Hopkinson instead of His Worship, to which Hopkinson took offence and eventually stated “I throw my gown from my shoulders, and cease to be mayor”. Hopkinson then resumed the chair without his gown and was immediately baited by Newcomb who referred to him as “Dr Hopkinson or Mr late Mayor” which caused uproar. This in turn led to a motion from Alderman Mills, a Tory, that Newcomb’s comments were uncourteous and unbecoming of a member of the Council. However, in contrast to the piece allegedly in the Lincolnshire Chronicle above, no vote was taken as Mills withdrew his motion. The protagonists in this spat, Hopkinson and Mills, later became key players in the formation of the Stamford Institution. Also in 1836, the Stamford Borough Rate Books, showed that Thomas Mills owned a property on Broad Street which was in the possession of Mr Secker (Appendix, 1836 ), who was running a school in the building. Mills was the same Alderman Mills who became a founding committee member of the Stamford Institution and when the new society needed accommodation his building, following the departure of Secker, was empty and available. Once the Institution had moved to its permanent home in 1842 the property reverted to its former use as a school, until eventually it became part of the Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company, latterly Barclays Bank, which closed permanently in April 2023. 49 Broad Street in 2023 Appendix The occupants and uses of 49 Broad Street 1798 . Approximate date of school run by the Misses Atkins and Winter, from Atkins death announcement ( SM , 19.12.1823). See also 1811 ii), below. 1799. Advertisement for the freehold sale of “a house in the Beast Market, well situated for a boarding house for young ladies” ( SM, 5.4.1799). It states to enquire of Mr Truman [Thomas, the son of John Truman], St Martin’s. 1801. Advertisement for a school to be opened in January by C Bibbing ( SM , 26.12.1800). No address given. See 1806 ii) below. 1806. i) Several advertisements throughout 1806 for the sale of a freehold house in the Beast Market, stating reply to Mr Truman, St Martin’s. The last being in September ( SM , 5.9.1806). This suggests property not sold in 1799. ii) Advertisement for Wm Meadow’s school in the Beast Market mentioning Bibbing as previous tenant ( SM , 12.12.1806). 1809. Property still for sale by Truman. 1811. i) Advertisement for the freehold sale of house in the Beast Market, formerly a boarding school. Reply to Mrs Burns, St Martin’s ( SM , 18.10.1811). This relates to Ann Burns née Truman, the daughter of John Truman who bequeathed a property in the parish of St Michael’s to her and her sister. ii) Advertisement for an auction to be held at the house of the late Thomas Truman, of a freehold property in the Beast Market “formerly used as a boarding-school for young ladies; late in the tenure of Misses Atkin(sic) and Winter” ( SM , 27.12.1811). It is assumed that the property was finally sold at this auction, probably to Thomas Mills as an investment. 1812. Advertisement for a Classical and Commercial Academy to be opened in the Beast Market by T A Jones ( SM , 3.4.1812). 1814. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by T A Jones has been taken over by the Rev W Lancaster ( SM , 23.5.1814). 1819. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by the Rev W lancaster has been taken over by J Russell ( SM , 23.4.1819) 1825. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by J Russell has been taken over by Mr Wragge ( SM , 2.7.1825). 1828. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by Mr Wragge has been taken over by Mr Gilbert ( SM , 24.10.1828). 1829. It appears that Mr Gilbert did not take up the running of the academy. 1830. The Bee is using the house as an office, for printing and as accommodation for Mr Clarke, editor (see 1833 below). 1833. The Bee closes down, Clarke’s furniture is auctioned, the printing equipment is sold and the building is advertised as a property “well adapted for a boarding school” ( SM , 3.5.1833). 1835. Secker takes over school ( SM , 8.5.1835). 1836. Thos. Mills is listed in 1836 Stamford Rate Assessment as owning a house in Broad Street with Secker as a tenant ( http://stamfordlocalhistorysociety.org.uk/rate-book-1836 ). 1837. Secker leaves ( SM , 7.4.1837). 1838. Becomes the home of Stamford Institution (see 1843 below). 1842. Stamford Institution moves to St Peter’s Hill. 1843. Advertisement for Classical and Commercial School opened by J Bartram in building ”lately occupied by the Stamford Institution” ( LC , 13.1.1843). 1845. Advertisement for Broad Street Academy run by Samuel Weddell “lately conducted by Mr Bartram” ( SM , 7.2.1845). 1850. Advertisement to inform that Mr Thacker will take over the Broad Street Academy from Samuel Weddell ( SM , 20.12.1850). 1853. Thacker retires through ill health. Broad Street property to be let. 1860. Joseph Smith reopens Broad Street Academy ( SM , 20.7.1860). 1864. People’s Institute was opened on site previously used as an academy ( LC , 5.11.1864). 1875. By this time the People’s Institute is closed ( SM , 11.6.1875). 1881. The 1881 census includes 49 Broad Street as part of a bank. However, the building must have been let in later years, in particular to Kelham & Son, solicitors, who occupied at least part of the building for much of the first half of the twentieth century. © 2023 John Daffurn A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath The Stamford Institution Previous Next

< Back Roasted Grain Advert – Better Than Coffee - Sold in Stamford 1822 An Act of Parliament having been passed to legalise and promote the sale of the above article, and to encourage its use, the public are respectfully informed that PREPARED ROASTED ENGLISH GRAIN, making, when ground or broken. Hunt’s Vegetable Breakfast Powder, is now on sale at J. DRAKARD’s News-office, Stamford, at one shilling per lb. In pounds, half pounds and quarter pounds. It only requires one trial to convince those who use it, that this invigorating beverage is as grateful to the palate as it is salubrious and economical. One pound of the Roasted Grain, will go as far as one pound and a half of coffee, and it possesses ten times the nourishment without partaking of the heating and deleterious qualities of that berry. Sold wholesale at the manufactory, Broad-wall, Blackfriars-road, London; and all orders supplied, on the same terms, by application to J. Drakard, agent for the counties of Lincoln, Rutland, Huntingdon, Cambridge and Northampton, to whom persons in those counties wishing to become agents for the sale of this excellent, cheap, and nutritious beverages are requested to apply. Source. DRAKARD’S STAMFORD NEWS (FRIDAY) SEPTEMBER 20TH 1822 p1/c1 Note John Drakard is best known as the editor of Drakard’s Stamford News and the publisher of Drakard’s History of Stamford (1822) and other radical publications. He supported the radical cause and was also a thorn in the side of the Cecil family and against the Burghley interest in the town. It probably therefore should not be a surprise that Drakard sold Hunt’s Vegetable Breakfast Powder, a breakfast drink, made by a firm created by Henry Hunt, a radical orator, who had been arrested at Peterloo in 1819 and believed in parliamentary reform and the repeal of the Corn Laws. A printed copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Woman’s Suffrage in Stamford Fight for the Vote 1913 Chris Hunt 2023 On Saturday July 12th 1913 the talk in Stamford was of that evening’s meeting on the Meadows where the issue of female suffrage and the right to vote was to be discussed. Reporters from the three local newspapers were in attendance, the Stamford and Rutland Guardian , the Stamford & District News and the Lincolnshire, Rutland & Stamford Mercury . Today we remember the Suffragettes, the militant wing of the movement for Votes for Women. There was however a non-militant organisation, the Suffragist’s, who allowed men to join their organisation, and it was them who organised the meeting on the Meadows as part of the 1913 Great Pilgrimage for women’s suffrage. Groups of women, with some men, marched from all parts of the country to London. Where on Saturday July 26th 1913 in Hyde Park a crowd of over 50,000 heard speeches calling for Votes For Women and those present unanimously passed the motion: - “That this meeting demands a Government measure for the enfranchisement of women.” As to the meeting in Stamford. The Guardian reporter summed up the day as follows:- The announcement on local hoarding, in eye-aching red and green, that a number of ladies belonging to the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies would address the people of Stamford on Saturday evening, in the Meadows, created keen interest, and their arrival was awaited by a huge assembly. The party, known as the Great North Road section, is one of a number marching through the country to London, and they are identified with a strictly law abiding and non-party organisation. Leaving Newcastle on June 18th, the contingent under notice has been subjected to what can only be described as hostility and rough treatment in some places, notably, in Mansfield and such occurrences can only be described as despicable seeing that the ladies are pursuing their agitations for the vote – the merit or de-merit of the demand we are not concerned with – by perfectly peaceful and legitimate means. On the other hand they have been the recipients of extraordinary kindness and hospitality. The National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage did not allow the march of the pilgrims to proceed without protest, and consequently men paraded the streets bearing sandwich-boards, upon which placards declared that women do not want votes. The Pilgrims made it quite clear that some women want them badly. The Suffragists, neatly attired in walking costumes, and wearing sashes of red, white and green, numbered about a dozen and carried banners setting forth the nature of the cause they are advocating. A motor car preceded them, containing Miss Norma Smith, who made the necessary arrangements at each place. The party left Grantham on Saturday morning (July 12th 1913), and on the way to Stamford held successful meetings at Colsterworth and Great Casterton. Their arrival here took place about 7.30 and an eager and expectant concourse of people gathered in Red Lion Square and lined Scotgate. As the Suffragists accompanied by several Stamford ladies who supported their cause, marched to the Meadows their reception was by no means unfriendly. Several of the ladies carried bouquets of flowers and altogether they presented a very attractive appearance. No time was lost in starting the speech making and very soon the trollies forming temporary platforms were surrounded by a dense throng of people. The crowd in the Meadows and lining the river bank must have numbered between three and four thousand, and very wisely, the police force was strongly augmented by constables from the adjacent district (Kesteven Constabulary). The arrangements for coping with any rowdyism were excellent, and Supt Theaker, the head of the Stamford force, who was consulted regarding the arrangements by the Union representatives, is to be congratulated on the way in which such a huge assembly was handled. It will be well recollected that upon the occasion of a Suffragette meeting in the Square a few months ago there were disgraceful scenes, and on Saturday evening it was soon evident that a number of those present were bent on creating a noise. Rushes were made for the platform occupied by Miss Garlick and her friends, but the police were able to prevent any mischief. Verbal interruptions were frequent, but these were of a good-natured character, and the ladies powers of repartee were fully demonstrated. It was a case of give-and-take, and the sallies evoked hearty laughter. Strangely enough all the opposition was centred on one trio of speakers. The speeches from the other platform proceeded without interruption to the end. Miss Garlick presided over the unruly assembly, and the other speakers were Miss Beaver and Miss Meikle (Leeds). On the other platform were Mrs Gerald Dowson as “chairman,” accompanied by Miss Norma Smith (organising the pilgrimage from Sheffield to Huntingdon), and Mrs W.E.Dowson of Nottingham. Miss Garlick, like the other speakers, placed the Suffragist arguments very eloquently. Some facts revealed concerning their Union included the information that it has a membership of 47,000, fresh adherents having been obtained at the rate of a thousand a month for some time past; that their methods are perfectly peaceful and law-abiding; that they are no way associated with the militant section, and that their express purpose is not only to assure the people of the country, but once again to assure the Prime Minister and all Members of Parliament that women do want the vote, notwithstanding the fact that on the way there that evening they notice a few tired-looking gentlemen carrying placards bearing the strange device, “Women Don’t Want the Vote.” She made it clear that the Union to which she belonged did not favour the militant methods. Miss Beaver spoke well, but was soon interrupted, and her mention of Mrs Pankhurst’s name was an error. It raised a storm of disapproval, and the hubbub after this was on the increase. The speaker urged that if women were not deemed intelligent enough to have votes, then some men who now possessed them scarcely knew how to use them. This remark did not mend matters and the interruptions continued at intervals. However, Miss Beaver managed to make some excellent points. Miss Meikle had not the best of attention and at the outset of her remarks, when interrupted, wrote notes on a tablet until the noise ceased. Towards the close of the meeting turf was thrown, and the addresses, which lasted for about an hour and a quarter ended amid much animation. The descent of the speakers from the trollies was the signal for a determined attempt to rush them, but the police succeeded in forming a strong bodyguard. As the ladies approached the bridge a desire was somewhat apparent to push them, along with the police, into the Welland. A number of townsmen however, went to the assistance of the officers and the ladies were got safely across the bridge, the entrance to which was then barricaded by the majority of the police while the suffragists made their way to the different residences which were affording them hospitality for the night. The following Wednesday afternoon (July 16th 1913) there was another suffrage meeting in the town. This one was organised by the Stamford branch of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association. This was held in the Bede House garden, Broad Street, which was addressed by the Countess of Selborne, President of the Association. This meeting being held in the week was a much more refined occasion, with tea and cake, and no need of police protection. The meeting was as political and the Guardian was there to report on the speeches. The Rev. J.R.H.Duke, rector of Thornhaugh presided over a good attendance, and was supported on the terrace by Lady Selborne, Misses M.Evans (Hon. Secretary of the local branch, D.Evans, Young, Hart, M.Kellett, Sunderland-Taylor, Williams, and Duncombe (Honorary Secretary of the Oakham Branch), along with Mr T.Sandall and a number of local clergy. The chairman, in a brief series of remarks, said that by all rules of ordinary logic women should have votes upon the same terms as men. At present they had municipal votes and could fill the office of Town Councillor, Guardian, and even Mayor. There was no reason why they should not take an equal interest in the greater affairs of the empire. Municipal questions largely concerned building, drainage, and roads, which was not really women’s business, so that the Parliamentary vote would enable them to deal with questions with which they would be more at home. As to property and taxation, it had been well said that representation and taxation should go hand-in-hand; there should be no objection against the contention that if women had to pay their share towards the upkeep of the country they should be given the chance of helping to decide how it should be expended (hear, hear). Besides, women were more economical than men, whilst they were quite as intelligent, if not more so in many cases. Women were conservative in the ordinary sense and would do more than men in the assistance of art, and the preservation of the memorials of the past. They would, as voters, strengthen the Conservative and Unionist side of the House of Commons, and might be reckoned on to protect the Church from attack, particularly the Welsh portion. To say, as some did, that if women had votes they would be under the influence of the parish priest was ridiculous. As to the militant methods of some women, there was no reason why so many others who favoured peaceful advocacy should be deprived of the privilege they claimed. He regarded the “cat and mouse” Act as a bad piece of legislation. The government had practically invited outrage, and one prominent supporter told those who asked for women’s suffrage that they would not get it until they made themselves a nuisance. Could it be wondered at that some took his words seriously? In conclusion, Mr Duke asked the Countess to address them. Her ladyship, he said, bore an honoured name, one which was respected all over the county. She was the daughter of a great statesman, and sister to Lord Roberts and Lord Hugh Cecil, who were staunch supporters of the Church. Lady Selborne, who was warmly received, said she was very pleased to visit Stamford, which was the only place represented by her father, the late Marquis of Salisbury, in the House of Commons, up to the time he went to the House of Lords. When she was asked to come and speak here, she felt that she would like to do so, for his sake (applause). He was always a supporter of the principle of giving votes to women and furthered the cause when County Councils were instituted and women were granted the power to vote in those elections. Thus, she felt that the work of their Association would have had his approval. Women had just as great an interest in all public questions as men possessed, and it was the theory of democracy that those that contributed to the State should have a voice in the choice of legislation and in the selection of the government responsible for the public business of the country. If women were granted the vote it was not likely that the powers of government would ever be put into their hands, and they would always be content to leave it to men to deal with, even if they ever possessed the right to become Members of Parliament. It was the business of women to choose and not to govern. Women had great influence in politics, and any Bill which had their support always made its way to the front. The speaker dealt with the great influence exercised by women, and its power of good or evil. Women with votes would know that with political power they would also have responsibility and they would therefore deal with any question with more care and thought than was the case at present. If women had the vote they would not be so likely to rush into politics in an emotional way just when some question cropped up that specially interested them. It would be far better to have voting women than influencing women. The passing of a reasonable measure entitling women to vote would prevent much of the present evil of militancy, which was depriving the cause of a great deal of sympathy. In several of our colonies, America and Norway, women had been granted the vote, and the system was a success. In Sweden and Denmark the granting of the vote was being favourably considered. It was somewhat remarkable that in no other country but ours had the agitation for votes for women resulted in militant methods. But any violence was due to Ministers saying one thing and meaning another. They should have said “No” at the outset, instead of making promises and not fulfilling them. In the House of Commons Women’s Franchise Bills had passed their second reading, and it was generally understood that when this was the case the principle of a measure was approved. But despite this women had not yet been granted a vote. The speaker considered that the Prime Minister, had he taken more care, could have drawn up the Franchise Bill so as to admit an amendment. This would have saved a great deal of bitterness and controversy. But the militant outrages formed no reason why the female sex generally should not be granted votes, for the women who had resorted to extreme measures did not number more than about 50, and it was unfair to keep a million and a half women disfranchised because of the faults of a few. Women had as great an interest in the affairs of the country as men, and what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander (applause). The best argument of all in support of votes for women was that it was a success, whether in County Councils or other departments of public life. Her ladyship, in conclusion, urged the members of the branch to continue the good work they had undertaken, and go forward with all possible activity. They should read up the subject, for it was only by being themselves convinced that they could convince others. Let them persuade their friends to join the Association, and thus strengthened, go on until their aim was accomplished. In proposing a vote of thanks to the Countess for her address and to the chairman, Miss Evans said that Stamford had a special claim upon her ladyship’s kindness, for she did not come among them as a stranger but as the daughter of the late Lord Salisbury, who in bygone years ably represented Stamford in Parliament. Her visit would rouse this branch to do even more for the cause of women’s liberty. Some said it was unwomanly to work for that cause, but how could it be when there were so many women who could not protect themselves, and who were working under labour conditions that urgently called for reform (applause). Other people said that a vote was no protection, but if this were the case why was there so much battling concerning the proposal to abolish plural votes? Miss Evans was congratulated on an able speech. Once the meeting finished those present were entertained at tea. How different to the earlier meeting held on the Meadows? In the same week that the Stamford and Rutland Guardian reported on the Suffragists meeting on Stamford Meadows and the meeting of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association there appeared in the same paper the following poem entitled:- THE SUFFRAGETTES We collected in our thousands, By the Welland’s flowing stream, To beguile the evening hours, Listening to the suffrage scheme. I am not disposed to offer, Views upon the female vote, But I wish to tell the scoffer, Things I would have him note. When he cast his senile “booing”, In a helpless woman’s face, He was eloquently showing, Much degeneracy of race. Pity him his lack of reason, Scorn for those who urge him on, This is Stamford’s senseless season, Chivalry is past and gone. Is there one who this attended? Could have faced, on yonder dray, With a courage, cool, and splendid, Asses with so loud a bray? (by) CYNICUS As to the Stamford & Rutland Guardian’s editorial comment. It stated:- All things considered, the Suffragist’s meeting at Stamford, on Saturday passed off remarkably well. For the credit of the great majority it must be made clear that those who disturbed the meeting and initiated the horseplay were simply out for a lark and cared nothing for common sense or argument. There was a chance of a Saturday night spree and that was all they wanted. Some, it was obvious, had had recourse to something stronger than water and so their share of the clamour need not be taken much notice of. Several of the interjections during the speeches were by no means devoid of wit and had the interruptions been simply verbal the meeting would have been quite enjoyable. But the foolish josting and turf-throwing was quite another story, and proved the caddish propensities of a certain section of the crowd. The speakers were ladies of education and should have been treated as such. However, as we have said, no great harm was done, and perhaps the occasional disorder was but the vent for those of vinous tastes. The Stamford and District News also reported on the event and although their report is similar there are a number of incidents reported that did not appear in the Stamford & Rutland Guardian . As they passed the Post office there was a slight attempt to “boo” them, but this soon subsided, and escorted by members of the Police Force the ladies were escorted down St John’s Street and Castle Hill to the meadows. Two trolleys belonging to Mr B.W.Aldwinckle were standing one on each side of the footpath between the two bridges, and speeches were delivered simultaneous from the two vehicles, to an assembly of between 2,000 and 3,000 persons. During part of the rally, at one time the crushing was so bad that numbers of little children near (one of) the wagons were escorted by the police out of the crowd into places of safety. Several of the men possessing a greater sense of justice and fair play than some of the others appealed to the disorderly ones to be quiet, but this had no effect, and the disorder continued, during which there was singing (including a verse of a hymn) and shouting, while a few piece of turf were thrown at the ladies. As to the scenes on the Meadows, the disturbances led to an appearance of two of the agitators at the Magistrates Court under the news banner, Disorderly Scenes at a Suffragette Meeting. Stamford Men Summoned. Amusing Evidence. Clearly the editor, or the compositor, or the reporter should have picked up that the Meeting had been held by Suffragists and not Suffragettes. The whole report mentioning Suffragettes. Two men were ordered to appear before the Magistrates on Saturday (July 19th 1913) on charges of improper conduct on the occasion of the Suffragettes meeting in the Meadows last week. They were Robert Stafford, 3 East-street, who was summoned for using indecent language, and Naaman Briggs, of 1 Zebra Cottages, against whom there was a charge of being drunk and disorderly. With regard to Stafford, P.c. Holgate stated that the man was very much under the influence of drink, and was creating annoyance by swearing and shouting. One man went to him and asked him to be quiet, whereupon defendant said words telling him in effect, to get out of the way. The defendant pushed about, and a man of about 50 years of age was knocked down. If the crowd had come that way, the constable feared the man would doubtless have been seriously injured. Supt. Theaker informed the Court that Stafford had been before the Magistrates seven times previously, and said he desired to press the case, as the language used by the defendant could only be described as vile. A fine of 10 shillings, with 7 shillings costs was imposed. The man Briggs created some amusement by a quaint saying. Asked whether he was guilty of being drunk and disorderly on the occasion referred to, he said, “I reckon I had a drop of beer, but I was not disorderly.” After P.c. Pacey had been sworn, Briggs said “Now, what did I say?” but he was told to be quiet. The officer told the Bench that the defendant, who was very drunk, was shouting and pushing about among the crowd. He called out “Mrs Pankhurst , ***** her.” Someone near asked him to be quiet, whereupon he expressed the hope that the suffragists would be in a much warmer place than the defendant, said the constable, continued this sort of thing for something like twenty minutes, pushing both women and men about, and although witness spoke to him he took no notice whatever. Defendant: What did you say when you brought me the summons? Didn’t you say go straight home when you spoke to me? The Constable: I never said anything of the sort. Defendant: None of your “guyfly.”(Laughter) I did nothing but shout Mrs Pankhurst! The Clerk: You can only ask the witness a question. Defendant: Was I drunk? The Constable: Certainly. Defendant: Then why didn’t you lock me up? The Constable: I gave you a chance to get home. Defendant: If I was drunk I couldn’t have got home. Briggs added that he went out shopping before he went home at half-past nine. Turning to P.c. Pacey, he said “Tell a straight tale.” Supt. Theaker, who was also present at the Meeting, supported the evidence of the constable, and said, that the man was frequently asked to go home by several in the crowd. Defendant: That was Daddy Hopkins. (Laughter). The Inspector: continuing said the defendant’s conduct was very bad indeed. There were several there who were rather disorderly, but he didn’t take much notice of that; in a case of this kind, however, where very bad language was used he considered it his duty to bring it before the notice of the Bench. The Chairman (to the Defendant): Have you anything to say? Defendant I expect I have got to pay, but I don’t want to pay much. (Laughter). I ain’t ??? a deal. (Laughter). This is the first time I’ve been here, and it would take a different suffragette meeting from that to get me here again. (Laughter). Defendant added: I saved the women. They were pelting at me instead of the women. (Laughter). While the Magistrates were considering the verdict the defendant caused further amusement by asking, “Have they done with me now, here? The Justices imposed a fine of 5 shillings, including costs, and the Mayor expressed the hope that this case would be a warning to him in the future remarking that if he kept from the drink he would be all right. Defendant: But I started young sir. (Laughter). Supt. Theaker: Are you going to pay? Defendant: No; shall you trust me? He was allowed a week. The Great Pilgrimage was a protest march in favour of votes for women and against militancy and was arguably the single most influential non-violent event in the fight for votes. It created an environment across the country, especially where meetings were held, of open debate of the subject rather than the newsworthy reports of broken windows, arson and hunger strikes. Previously it was as if any disaster could be blamed on the Suffragettes. Stamford was no different. Back on Thursday May 22nd 1913 two separate fires one at the Wesleyan Chapel on Barn Hill and another in the stables behind the Stamford Hotel created rumours in the town that those ‘damn suffragettes’ were involved. Suddenly in the minds of some, a woman should not be allowed out with a box of matches. Stamford had a population of around 9.500 people in 1913, between 2,000 and 3,000 attended the meeting on the Meadows that Saturday evening. Let us hope that the majority supported female suffrage. Sources 'By the Way’ Comment Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p7/c1 Suffragettes Poem Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p7/c2 Unionist Women Franchise Meeting Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p8/c1&2 Suffragists Visit To Stamford Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p8/c4&5 Women Suffragists in Stamford Stamford & District News July 16th 1913 p5/c2 Stamford Men Summoned Stamford & District News July 23rd 1913 p5/c1 Suffragettes On Tour Stamford Mercury July 18th 1913 p4/c4 Notes: Stamford & District News published on Wednesdays Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury on Friday Stamford & Rutland Guardian published on Saturdays The first names/initials of the women at the Conservative and Unionist meeting were added from the Stamford & District News of July 23rd 1913 p7/c1. For more background information on this topic the recently published book by Jane Robinson; Hearts And Minds. The Untold Story of the Great Pilgrimage and How Women Won the Vote , is a MUST read. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Saracen's Head in Stamford By Alan Rogers Thomas Chapelleyn to Richard Wykes and Elizabeth Wykes, bond for £10 endorsed with a condition relating to the building and repair of an inn called le Sarsynneshed, Saracen’s Head in the parish of St Mary at the Bridge Stamford. March 24th 1435. Source. People & Property in Medieval Stamford by Alan Rogers. (838. MB 4/58) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back William Luff By Karen Smith My husband’s first ancestor to come to Australia was William Luff (1795-1852), a convict from Stamford, Lincolnshire. This paper outlines William’s life and seeks to understand the meaning that William gave to his convict experience. At first glance, this is difficult as there are no surviving oral, written or pictorial accounts from William himself. The want of his ‘voice’ therefore necessitates an outside-in approach, which is accomplished through online records. These records enable informed assumptions about how William’s convict experience impacted his life. William was baptised in 1795 at St John’s (Church of England), Stamford, Lincolnshire. He was the son of Thomas Luff, soldier, and Ann. [1] It is likely that Thomas Luff served in the British Army during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the first few decades of the nineteenth century, standards of living in the rural areas of England had fallen. When harvests were bad, farm workers and small tenants were the first to suffer. This caused a migration towards towns where work was easier to be found. Then, following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was in considerable turmoil with returned soldiers and others involved in war production suddenly finding themselves out of employment and in competition for jobs. It was into this turmoil that twenty-year-old William Luff, labourer, found himself. On the night of Thursday 16 November 1815, the White Hart Inn at Ketton, Rutland, some three miles south west of Stamford, was subject to burglary. The objects stolen included “a considerable sum of money” and two silver watches. [2] Suspicion quickly fell on William Luff and Joseph Briggs as they had been seen in the vicinity. Image of the White Hart Inn, taken in 2009 Image of the White Hart Inn, taken in 2009, from: White Hart, Ketton ( closedpubs.co.uk ) William was apprehended by the Stamford town sergeant on 13 January 1816. He went through two trials before his case went before the grand jury at the Rutland Assizes, held at Oakham Castle, on 7 March 1817. The delay was due to the hope that Briggs would be apprehended, as it was thought he was the instigator, but he evaded capture. [3] At trial, the sergeant testified that William had freely confessed to the crime without coercion, to which William interrupted, “Yes he did [coerce me]: he said I should be hung if I did not ‘peach”. [4] William’s confession was read out: Briggs identified the White Horse as a good mark, and said he would commit the burglary if William would keep watch. After listening to evidence, the jury found William guilty, and Judge the Hon. Baron Richards passed the sentence of death, saying that only God’s grace could save him from the gallows with the reprieve of transportation, upon which William interjected with, “I hope not, my Lord, I would sooner be hanged.” It was subsequently reported, “Nothing so thoroughly hardened and wicked as this man’s behaviour in Court is remembered before in Rutland.” [5] God’s grace must have shone down, because William’s sentence was commuted to seven years transportation to New South Wales (NSW). [6] On the prison coach’s journey from Rutland to Portsmouth, it stopped at Stamford, where two of his brothers and their wives visited William and lamented his fate. [7] On 20 May 1817, at Portsmouth, William was placed on the prison hulk, Leviathan, a 74-gun ship used at the Battle of Trafalgar. [8] The hulk’s register describes William as 5ft 11¼ inches tall, with black hair and grey eyes. [9] Whilst on the hulk, William and his fellow inmates were required to work at Portsmouth and Langston harbours. [10] William was one of 180 convicts transported to Australia on the Ocean , under Master Samuel Remmington. [11] The ship was also carrying 12 bales of wool, 3 tons of coal and 4 head of horned cattle, an indication of the paucity of industry in Australia at the time. [12] The ship’s surgeon and superintendent was George Fairford, whose journal tells us that the ship departed England on 24 June 1817 and arrived at Sydney on 16 January 1818. On the journey the ship stopped at St Helena, where one of the convicts, James Barnes, aged 21 years, was taken off the ship after an episode of “high delirium” during which he confessed to murdering a woman in Scotland two years prior. [13] William Luff was not amongst the 30 convicts and soldiers who received medical treatment on board ship. It should also be noted that there was no loss of life on the journey, a result of the Redfern report, which led, in 1815, to the Naval Transport Board assigning a qualified naval surgeon to accompany every convict ship arriving in Australia. [14] On the day of the Ocean’s arrival at Sydney Cove, John Thomas Campbell, Governor Lachlan Macquarie’s then Secretary, wrote to Reverend Samuel Marsden JP, Parramatta, listing convicts for distribution. Campbell specified eight convicts be assigned to his 1,500-acre Bringelly property, Shancomore , including William Luff. [15] It is likely Campbell selected William and his cohort on the basis of their good health and productive potential. It has been argued elsewhere that nepotism in the assignment period of convict history (1788-1839) led to inconsistencies in the application of penal policy and practice. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that a convict’s progress from primary incarceration, transportation, assignment, and reintegration through ticket of leave and tickets of freedom largely depended on their behaviour, reformative goals and the value placed upon their skills. [16] At the time of William’s arrival, the colonial population of NSW was around 13,000, made up of government and military officials, soldiers, ex-convicts and their families, and a few free settlers. The colonial population regularly came in contact with Aboriginal people visiting and trading with settlers. Shancomore is in Dhurug country, and in May 1814 it was reported that around 400 Aboriginal people attacked the property, spearing the overseer in the shoulder, killing several pigs, and stealing grain and other provisions. [17] In July 1815 James Daley’s 40-acre Bringelly property was approached by a number of Aboriginal people. James was away at the time, and his wife, Maria, shot at them as a deterrent, then ran in terror from the house leaving behind two children and her three-day old infant. When she returned the two children had been murdered, but the infant was unharmed. It was thought this was payback for two Aboriginal children shot two months earlier. [18] Shancomore was not an easy assignment for convicts. [19] Another letter from Campbell to Robert Lowe Esq JP, Bringelly, also dated 16 January 1818, sought to have eight convicts at Shancomore removed as they were found to possess “bad conduct”. [20] Earlier, in February 1816, convict Andrew Coultra drowned in the Nepean while escaping, and in January 1818, almost as Willian Luff commenced work on the property, another convict, James Pestill, escaped by stealing Campbell’s horse and other property. [21] Regrettably, by November 1819, William had run afoul of Campbell, and was working at Sydney’s Brickfields. [22] A gang of eight men was expected to make 3,000 bricks a day at this site. [23] William would have been there for weeks or months depending on the severity of his offence, and would have been wearing ‘party dress’ as a public mark of disgrace. [24] 1820 - Day in the life of a convict Image from: 1820 - Day in the life of a convict ( mhnsw.au ) William was back with Campbell in 1820, and in 1821 was assigned to Sir John Wylde, Judge Advocate, who owned Cecil Hills, Cabramatta. [25] It is likely William’s work at both properties involved clearing land, fencing, building, tending stock, and ploughing. [26] Every Sunday he would have been required to attend church. There are no records of William ever committing another offence either as a convict or after his emancipation on 6 October 1825. His Ticket of Freedom record shows that William’s convict experience was written on his body: he was an inch shorter, had greying hair, and ruddy complexion. [27] In 1828, William was working as overseer for George Wentworth, son of D’Arcy Wentworth, at Greendale near Bringelly. [28] In 1835 the property was described as 7,000 acres, 35 miles from Sydney, and, “On the Farm is an excellent Cottage, containing eight apartments, with detached Kitchen, Stabling, and commodious Sheds. The whole is enclosed with a three-rail fence, and divided into eight Paddocks…” [29] It is likely that William, as overseer, was responsible for the management of convicts in this role. William next appears in the records in 1834, when he was a landholder for free inhabitants of the Illawarra (Tharawal country) who signed a petition to the Governor of NSW, Major-General Sir Richard Bourke requesting the construction of a road to the district. [30] There is a dearth of information about William from 1834 to 4 September 1837, when he married colony-born Catholic, Catherine Devlyn (1824-1895), at St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney. [31] Catherine was 13 years old, the age of consent for women being 12 years, and for men, 14. [32] We can only speculate why theirs was a Catholic marriage. Marriages between those of the Church of England faith and Roman Catholics were recognised by legislation passed in 1834. [33] Perhaps the Reverend Samuel Marsden’s ‘flogging parson’ reputation diminished William’s Church of England allegiance, or perhaps it was a condition set by Catherine’s parents. [34] By October 1838 William and Catherine had made their way from Sydney to Tumut (in Ngarigo Wiradjuri country). William was working for John Archer Broughton (1818-1878), who owned a property named Mundongbeggey , which was located some four and half miles east of Tumut. [35] We know this because William placed a newspaper notice advertising the stud services of his three-year-old horse, Jupiter, who won the hurdles at the Yass races, earning William £20. Moreover, Jupiter was related to Hector, once the property of the Duke of Wellington. [36] This advertisement allows us not only to establish William’s location at a specific date, but also the circles he was moving in and his personal interests and abilities. It shows us that William was coming up in the world. William and Catherine commenced having a family in 1839, with Thomas born that year, Ann in 1841, and Catherine in 1844. [37] While these births were unregistered, five subsequent births were registered at a Catholic church in the Yass mission, possibly St Augustine’s Church, Yass, which was built between 1838-1844. [38] St Augustine's Catholic Church Image of St Augustine’s Catholic Church (foreground) from: Lovat-Chapel-Memorial-Booklet.pdf ( staug-yass.org.au ) By 1841 the family was living in a wooden home at Gobarralong, alongside the mighty Murrumbidgee River, some 30 miles north of Tumut (Ngarigo Ngunawal country). [39] Between March 1840 and September 1845, William applied for seven licenses to depasture stock at their property, Courah , Gobarralong. [40] At the time the property was a modest 1,280 acres, with grazing capability of 280 cattle and 17 horses. [41] Image of "Courah", Gobarralong, taken by author 2023 In June 1849, William sponsored the immigration of his niece, Mary Ann True (nee Luff) and her husband Samuel to Australia on the ship, John Bright . Mary Ann was the daughter of William’s older brother George Luff (1793-1862). Mary Ann, dressmaker, was aged 24 years, and Samuel, stone mason, 34. The ship’s passenger list says she has an uncle, William Lough [sic], on the Murrumbidgee. [42] After their arrival in Australia, the Trues made their way to Gundagai, no doubt stopping at Gobarralong on the way. One of Mary Ann and Samuel’s descendants shared the following: “Story comes from Alice Jones (True) about her grandparents travelling from Sydney to Gundagai by bullock wagon in 1849. They came upon some Aboriginals roasting an animal by the side of the track, probably taken from a settler’s herd of cattle. Mary True became quite frightened and upset as she was convinced the Aboriginals were cannibals and they were cooking humans! She wanted to turn around and immediately return to England! The journey from Sydney to Gundagai in those days was quite perilous and difficult with the journey taking up to three months. The road was nothing more than a rough bush track made by the wheels of the wagons travelling through the never-ending scrub.” [43] Mary Ann’s arrival in Australia shows that William was in touch with his Lincolnshire family: he managed to retain close family bonds despite transportation. Sadly, however, William Luff’s story ends in tragedy. William was in Gundagai on the night of 25 June 1852, when the town was washed away by the flooded Murrumbidgee and at least 78 people lost their lives. William happened to be staying overnight at The Rose Inn when the flood occurred. He and twenty-seven others climbed on the roof hoping to escape the water, but to no avail: “William Luff, a squatter from Gobarralong…was amongst those drowned. James Gormley said that Luff was a strong man in the prime of life . He was an ex-convict from Stamford, Lincolnshire, who had arrived in the colony on board the Ocean in 1817 [sic].” [44] William Luff was only one of 171,000 convicts transported from England and Ireland to Australia. We don’t have access to William’s reflections on his experience. However, we can see that following his sentence he lived a law-abiding life. In addition, by relocating from Sydney to Gobarralong he was able to shed the convict and emerge the squatter, racehorse owner, uncle of an assisted immigrant. His legacy remains in Gobarralong, where Luffs work, worship, and prosper to this day. Bibliography Allen, Matthew, ‘The Myth of the Flogging Parson: Samuel Marsden and Severity of Punishment in the Age of Reform,’ Australian Historical Studies , 48, 2017, pp. 486-501. Allport, Gordon W., ‘The Nature of Prejudice,’ 1979, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 97F5FE75CF9A120E7DC108EB1B0FF5EC.holocaust-the-nature-of-prejudice.doc ( live.com ) . Ancestry.com , 1841 New South Wales, Australia, Census. Ancestry.com , England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. Ancestry.com , Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896. Ancestry.com , New South Wales, Australia, Certificates of Freedom, 1810-1814, 1827-1867. Ancestry.com , New South Wales, Australia, Returns of the Colony, 1822-1857. Ancestry Library Edition, Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868. Ancestry Library Edition, England and Wales Criminal Registers, 1791-1892. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Australia, Colonial Secretary’s Papers, 1788-1856. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Australia, Convict Intents, 1788-1842. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Australia, Settler and Convict Lists, 1787-1834. Ancestry Library Edition, New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825 Ancestry Library Edition, UK Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849. Ancestry Library Edition, UK, Royal Navy Medical Journals, 1817-1856. Australian National University, ‘Sir John Wylde ,’ Australian Dictionary of Biography website, n. d., Biography - Sir John Wylde - Australian Dictionary of Biography ( anu.edu.au ) . Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, ‘The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia,’ 1996. British Broadcasting Commission, ‘Crime and Punishment In Industrial Britain, c. 1750- c. 1900,’ British Broadcasting Commission website, n.d., Crime and criminals - impact of industrialisation - Crime and punishment in Industrial Britain, c.1750-c.1900 - OCR B - GCSE History Revision - OCR B - BBC Bitesize . Cumpston, J. S., Shipping Arrivals & Departures, Sydney 1788-1825 , Roebuck Society Publication No. 22, 1977, Canberra. Cunneen, Matthew & Malcolm Allbrook, ‘Understanding convict lives: A historiographical and methodological reassessment,’ Australian Journal of Biography and History , No. 7, 2023, ANU Press, Canberra, 1-21. Dodd, Ian, ‘Marriage Law in Colonial New South Wales: C. H. Currey Revisited,’ Journal of Colonial Australian History , Vol. 20, 2018, 1-23. Drakard’s Stamford News. Foxall, Katherine, ‘From Convicts to Colonists: The Health of Prisoners and the Voyage to Australia, 1823-53,’ The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History , 2011, 39:1, 1-19. French, Reverend J. D., Tumut and District Historical Society, Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley , 1965, Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley - J. D. French - Google Books . Gibbs, Martin, Tuffin, Richard, Roe, David, ‘An Historical Archaeology of Labor in Convict Australia: A Framework for Engagement,’ Historical Archaeology , 2023, 57: 1008-1030. Maher, Rev. Brian, Memories of Yass Mission St Augustine’s Parish, Yass, N. S. W. Sesquicentenary 1838-1988 , St Augustine’s Parish Sesquicentenary Committee, Yass, 1988. Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Convict Sydney Sandstone Bricks,’ n. d., Sandstock Bricks ( mhnsw.au ) . Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Depasturing Licenses Index 1837-1851,’ n. d., Depasturing licenses index 1837-1851 ( mhnsw.au ) . Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Treatment of convicts by private employers,’ n. d., Convict assignment records ( mhnsw.au ) . New South Wales Government, An Act to Remove Doubts as to the Validity of Certain Marriages Had and Solemnized within the Colony of New South Wales and to Regulate the Registration of Certain Marriages Baptisms and Burials , 4th July, 1834, act-1834-7a ( nsw.gov.au ) . New South Wales Government Gazette. NSW Land Registry Services, Historical Parish Maps, Historical Land Records Viewer, NSW Land Registry Services | HLRV ( nswlrs.com.au ) . Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 2012, ‘Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012’. Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser . Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, New South Wales. Stamford Mercury. State Library New South Wales, ‘The Convict Experience,’ State Library of New South Wales website, n.d., The convict experience | State Library of New South Wales ( nsw.gov.au ) . The Australian. The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser. The Sydney Monitor. The Sydney Morning Herald. Watson, Frederick, Chapman, Peter & Australia Parliament Library Committee, 1914, Historical records of Australia, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney Historical records of Australia ( nla.gov.au ) Wikipedia, ‘List of British Prison Hulks,’ Wikipedia website, 2024, List of British prison hulks - Wikipedia . [1] Baptism record for William Luff, England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975, FHL Film No. 1450474, Reference ID: -2:3Q8FMVV, Ancestry.com , accessed 2 June 2024. Keith Hansell (Stamford and District Local History Society) to Karen Smith [email], 30 May 2024 original held by author. [2] “BURGLARY,” Drakard’s Stamford News , Friday 17 November 1815, p. 3. [3] “Rutland Assizes,” Stamford Mercury , Friday 14 March 1817, p. 4. [4] As above. [5] William Luff, England and Wales Criminal Registers, 1791-1892, England, Rutland, 1817, Accessed online at Ancestry Library Edition, 4 June 2024. [6] Hulk record for William Luff, Leviathan Register 1801-1836, UK Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849, p. 8, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 15 May 2024. [7] ‘Domestic News,’ Drakard’s Stamford News , Friday 23 May 1817, p. 3, The British Newspaper Archive, accessed 15 May 2024. [8] Record of the Leviathan , Wikipedia, ‘List of British Prison Hulks,’ Wikipedia website, 2024, List of British prison hulks - Wikipedia , accessed 14 June 2024. [9] Record for William Luff, p. 8, Leviathan Register 1801-1836, UK Prison Hulk Registers and Letter Books, 1802-1849, Ancestry Library Edition. [10] The Navy,” Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, Monday 3 February 1817, p. 2. The British Newspaper Archive, Brass Ornaments In The Roman Style. No Buttons Ar e Seen On The New Jacket, The Front Being Secured By Hook* | Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser | Monday 03 February 1817 | British Newspaper Archive [11] Record of transportation for William Luff, Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868, 1810-1817, record of convicts aboard the ship, Ocean , p. 178, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed online 7 May 2024. Frederick Watson, Frederick & Peter Chapman, Australia Parliament Library Committee, 1914, Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816 - December 1818), p. 749, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816 - December 1818) ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 2 June 2024. [12] J. S. Cumpston, Shipping Arrivals & Departures, Sydney 1788-1825 , Roebuck Society Publication No. 22, 1977, Canberra. [13] Museum of History New South Wales, “The convict impact on Aboriginal people: Impacts of the convict system on Aboriginal Country and communities,” accessed online 7 June 2024: The convict impact on Aboriginal people ( mhnsw.au ) [14] Katherine Foxall, “From Convicts to Colonists: The Health of Prisoners and the Voyage to Australia, 1823-53,” p. 3, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History , 39:1, 1-19 (2011). [15] Letter concerning assignment of William Luff, New South Wales, Australia, Colonial Secretary’s Papers, 1788-1856, Copies of Letters Sent Within the Colony, 1814-1827, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 15 May 2024. Map of the Parish of Bringelly, County of Cumberland, sheet reference 1, undated, Historical Parish Maps, NSW Land Registry Services, Historical Land Records Viewer, NSW Land Registry Services | HLRV ( nswlrs.com.au ) , accessed 6 June 2024. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia , 1996. [16] Martin Gibbs, Richard Tuffin and David Roe, “An Historical Archaeology of Labor in Convict Australia: A Framework of engagement,” Historical Archaeology , 2023, 57: 1108-1030, p. 1012. [17] The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia, 1996 ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 7 May 1814, p. 2, Sydney: accessed online at: 07 May 1814 - Sydney. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 1 Sep 1821, p. 2, Classified Advertising, accessed online at: 01 Sep 1821 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [18] Stephen Gapps, The Sydney Wars: Conflict in the Early Colony, 1788-1817 , (2014), New South Publishing, p. 127, accessed online 7 June 2024: ProQuest Ebook Central - Book Details ( utas.edu.au ) [19] State Library New South Wales, ‘The Convict Experience,’ State Library of New South Wales website, n.d., The convict experience | State Library of New South Wales ( nsw.gov.au ) , accessed 13 June 2024. [20] New South Wales, Australia, Colonial Secretary’s Papers, 1788-1856, Copies of Letters Sent Within The Colony, 1814-1827, p. 1272, accessed online at Ancestry Library Edition, 6 June 2024. [21] The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 3 Feb 1816, p. 2, Sydney, accessed online 6 June 2024: 03 Feb 1816 - Sydney. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 28 Sep 1816, p. 2, SYDNEY, accessed online 6 June 2024: 28 Sep 1816 - SYDNEY. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) ; The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 10 Jan 1818, p. 1, Classified Advertising, accessed online 6 June 2024: 10 Jan 1818 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [22] 1819 population muster record for Will Luff, New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825, Population Muster, 1819, p. 86, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 23 May 2024. [23] Museums of History New South Wales, ‘Convict Sydney Sandstone Bricks,’ Museums of New South Wales website, Sandstock Bricks ( mhnsw.au ) , accessed 13 June 2024. [24] Frederick Watson, Frederick & Peter Chapman, Australia Parliament Library Committee, 1914, Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816-December 1818), p. 518, Series 1, vol. 9 (January 1816 - December 1818) ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 13 June 2024. [25] Record for William Luff in 1820, New South Wales, Australia, Settler and Convict Lists, 1787-1834, New South Wales, Male K-Y, 1820, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 14 June 2024. Record for William Luff in 1821, New South Wales, Australia, Settler and Convict Lists, 1787-1834, New South Wales, Male K-Y, 1821, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 4 June 2024. Australian National University, Australian Dictionary of Biography , Sir John Wylde , accessed Biography - Sir John Wylde - Australian Dictionary of Biography ( anu.edu.au ) , 4 June 2024. Parish of Cabramatta, County Cumberland, Parish Cabramatta, Sheet Reference 1, Historical Parish Maps, New South Wales Land Registry Services, accessed 4 June 2024. [26] ‘Classified Advertising,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 4 Sep 1813, p. 1, 04 Sep 1813 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 6 June 2024. ‘Classified Advertising,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 19 Sep 1814, p. 1, 19 Feb 1814 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 6 June 2024. ‘Classified Advertising,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Sat 1 Sep 1821, p. 2, 01 Sep 1821 - Classified Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 11 June 2024. Crops and stock of John Thomas Campbell Esq., New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825, New South Wales Land and Stock, 1819, p. 23, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 13 June 2024. Stock of John Wylde Esq., New South Wales, Census and Population Books, 1811-1825, New South Wales Land and Stock, 1819, p. 88, Ancestry Library Edition, accessed 13 June 2024. [27] Certificate of Freedom for William Luff, Number 43/4395, New South Wales, Australia, Certificates of Freedom, 1810-1814, 1827-1867, Ancestry.com , accessed 1 May 2024. [28] ‘Family Notices,’ The Sydney Monitor , Sat 22 Sep 1832, p. 3, 22 Sep 1832 - Family Notices - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) accessed online 30 May 2024. [29] The Sydney Herald, Thu 7 Mar 1833, p. 3 “Advertising”: accessed online 27 May 2024: 07 Mar 1833 - Advertising - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [30] The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, Thu 1 May 1834, p.2, accessed online 7 June 2024: p2 - 01 May 1834 - The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 - 1842) - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) [31] Marriage certificate for William Luff and Catherine Devlyn, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 641/1837 V1837641 128. [32] Birth register entry for Catherine Develyn [sic], Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 519/1824 V1824519 125. Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 , Chapter 2: History of Marriage Laws in Australia, section 2.6, https___aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_spla_bill marriage_report_chapter2.pdf , accessed 8 June 2024. [33] New South Wales Government, An Act to Remove Doubts as to the Validity of Certain Marriages Had and Solemnized within the Colony of New South Wales and to Regulate the Registration of Certain Marriages Baptisms and Burials , 4th July, 1834, act-1834-7a ( nsw.gov.au ) , accessed 12 June 2024. [34] Matthew Allen, ‘The Myth of the Flogging Parson: Samuel Marsden and Severity of Punishment in the Age of Reform,’ Australian Historical Studies , 48, 2017, p. 491. [35] Reverend J. D. French, “Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley,” (1965), p.8, accessed online 25 May 2024: Discovery and Early History of Tumut Valley - J. D. French - Google Books . Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia, 1996. [36] ‘Advertising,’ The Australian , Thur 13 Dec 1838, p. 4, p4 - 13 Dec 1838 - The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 - 1848) - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 25 May 2024. ‘Yass,’ The Australian , Sat 27 Oct 1838, p. 4, 27 Oct 1838 - YASS. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 8 June 2024. [36] ‘Magistrate for the Ensuing Week, John Piper, Esquire,’ The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser , Thu 1 Jan 1824, p. 2, 01 Jan 1824 - MAGISTRATE FOR THE ENSUING WEEK, JOHN PIPER, ESQUIRE. - Trove ( nla.gov.au ) , accessed 20 May 2024. [37] Unregistered births: Thomas in 1839, Ann in 1841, and Catherine in 1844. [38] Birth register entry for Alice Luff, born 1845, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, 1887/1845 V18451887 62. Birth register entry for Sarah Luff, born 1846, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, 1891/1846 V18461891 63. Birth register entry for James Luff, born 1848, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 1743/1848 V18481743 65. Birth register entry for William Luff, born 1850, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, registration no. 415/1850 V1850415 67. Birth register entry for Jane Luff, born 1851, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales, 2057/1851 V18512057 68. Rev. Brian Maher, Memories of Yass Mission St Augustine’s Parish, Yass, N. S. W. Sesquicentenary 1838-1988 , St Augustine’s Parish Sesquicentenary Committee, Yass, 1988, p. 18-23. [39] Census record for William Luff, 1841 New South Wales, Australia, Census, Abstracts, Murrumbidgee, p. 4, Ancestry.com.au , accessed 3 June 2024. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The AIATSIS Map of Indigenous Australia , 1996. [40] Depasturing licenses for William Luff, Murrumbidgee District, Depasturing Licenses Index 1837-1851 , Museums of History NSW, Depasturing licenses index 1837-1851 ( mhnsw.au ) , accessed 10 June 2024. [41] Description of the holding capacity of Courah, New South Wales Government Gazette , Sat 16 Feb 1850 [Issue No. 22 (SUPPLEMENT)], p. 263, 16 Feb 1850 - SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF CLAIMS TO LEASES OF CROWN LANDS BEYOND THE SETTLED DISTRICTS. - Trove , accessed 15 May 2024: [42] Assisted immigrant passenger list for Mary Ann and Samuel True, New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896, 1849, February, John Bright, p. 2, accessed at Ancesty.com 1 June 2024: Ancestry.com.au - New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896 [43] Marcia McIntyre, shared on Ancestry.com , 6 April 2012. [44] Cliff Butcher, Gundagai: A Track Winding Back , published by A. C. Butcher (2002). By Karen Smith 59 Market Street Boorowa, New South Wales, 2586 Australia Email: karenjanesmith@gmail.com A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next