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

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

< Back The Battle for 51 High Street, Stamford By Richard Asher The story of a Listed Building and the battle to save it in the 1960s A talk given for the Stamford Local History Society on 4th Dec 2025. Photograph - Stamford Library The property pictured was 51 High Street Stamford This photograph was probably taken in the 1930s. In the 1960s, it became a battleground between the modernisers and the conservationists, as equally important locally as the famous battle for the Euston Arch was in London. I particularly want to talk about No. 51. That is because for me this is a personal memory. Although I was not involved in the dispute itself (I was still at school at the time), this building is part of the reason I was born in Stamford, my home town, and the town whose history has come to mean so much to me. So, let me explain. My dad, Fred Asher, was born and brought up in the tiny village of Dunsby, the other side of Bourne. When he was 14, he left school and started to work as an office boy for a local business in Bourne called Longstaff and Lyall Ltd. They were auctioneers and land agents. He eventually became an assistant to Thomas R Lyall, one of the directors. Fred Asher auctioning livestock (photo R Asher) After the war, having been in the army, my dad returned to work for Longstaff and Lyall at Bourne. [i] However, in 1947, Thomas Lyall asked him to run the Stamford office. In 1949, my dad married my mum, and they set up home in Stamford. I was born the following year in Stamford Hospital. Longstaff and Lyall occupied 51 High Street as their Stamford office. The Company had been based there since about 1938. Subsequently, my dad became a qualified Auctioneer and a Partner in the business (see left). So, you see, if my dad had not been sent to the Stamford office at 51 High Street, I may never have been born in Stamford. No. 51 was thought to date back to at least the 1600s and had been at different times, a public house (The Windmill), a school, and a private house. John Daffurn’s book “Stamford Assets” recalls that it was one of the buildings acquired by the Newcombe family in the nineteenth century and recounts two unusual deaths that occurred in the building [ii] . This photograph shows the front of the building just before it was demolished. ( Photographs RCHM ) On the back of the building in the pargetting, you can just about make out the shape of a windmill, and next to it a date “1690”. It is not clear if the two images are connected, but in his book “Stamford Pubs and Breweries” Martin Smith speculates that it could have been one of the larger Inns of the town [iii] . Photograph RCHM I remember the building well from the early nineteen sixties. What was it like inside? Well, the photograph below gives some idea of the main office on the ground floor and, yes, that is me aged about 14 in the centre of the photograph. Photograph - R Asher The place was in poor repair and the facilities limited, just one toilet used by all the office staff, who numbered about 7 or 8 people. There was no hot water, and no central heating, with just very ancient gas fires. The only way to wash the tea pot and mugs was to disconnect the gas pipe to the fire in the general office and reconnect it to a gas ring on which to boil the kettle. The same process was repeated, once the mugs had been washed and dried, to make the tea. Only then could the gas fire be re-connected, until the next time tea was required! I also recall being sent to collect a sheet of hardboard from Scholes’ shop at 3 Ironmonger Street. This sheet was to put over the wooden floor in one of the first-floor offices, as the typists had been complaining that their high-heel shoes were getting caught in the holes in the floorboards! In those days I had no idea what a Listed Building was or what it meant. But subsequently I discovered that the building had been subject to a Building Preservation Order and was a Grade II listed building. Around 1963, the owner of 51 High Street was approached, along with the adjoining owners at 46, 47, 48, 49, & 50 High Street and 4, 5, & 6 Maiden Lane, by the Pearl Assurance Company Limited with a view to the Insurance Company acquiring all of the properties on the High Street between the then Co-op Drapery store (now Weird Fish & Magnet Kitchens) and the National Westminster Bank branch, on the corner of Maiden Lane (now Starbucks). Pearl Assurance were a major player in the insurance industry. They were, like all the large insurance companies of the day, heavily into property development as a way of investing for future returns. They had decided that Stamford was ripe for a development of new shops, and particularly a branch of one of the fast-expanding national supermarket chains. In those days, there was no such thing as “out-of-town shopping” or hypermarkets and a 6,000 sq. ft. “in town” supermarket was considered the right size for a town such as Stamford. It should also be remembered that, in those days, Stamford High Street was still a main road. Rear servicing was an important requirement to prevent serious traffic hold ups on the High Street. Thus, the plan was to build a new Tesco supermarket, and 4 new shop units, with offices above. All the shops would be serviced from an access in Maiden Lane. This plan required the demolition of 47 to 51 High Street and 4 to 6 Maiden Lane. The battle lines were drawn. The situation was quite complex. On the conservation front, in favour of retaining the listed buildings (which were 51 High Street and 5 & 6 Maiden Lane) were the relatively newly formed Stamford Civic Society and some of Stamford Borough councillors. On the other hand, others of the Stamford Borough Council members were all for the modernisation of Stamford. The County Council – in those days the Kesteven County Council was also split. The Ministry of Transport, who had a say because the High Street was part of the A16 Stamford to Boston Trunk Road, wanted the development to go ahead because it would allow them to insist on the building line being set back to permit them to almost double the road width at this narrow part of the High Street. The debate went on for over 3 years as to whether the buildings should be demolished. Site meetings were held between Stamford Borough Council, Kesteven County Council, and the developers. Plans were revised and resubmitted. Eventually, it was agreed that all the buildings on the High Street should be demolished (including 51), but on Maiden Lane only No 4. It was decided that 5 & 6 Maiden Lane should be saved from demolition. Also, the new building erected at No 4 Maiden Lane must incorporate the doorway to the Albert Hall (at No. 46 High Street) which was to be taken down and rebuilt in its new position – at the back of No 4 Maiden Lane, where it remains to this day – where few people know it exists – and usually it is hidden by dustbins. The Department of Transport did not fully get its way either. The building line was to be set back, but only by 3 feet, leaving a slight dogleg in the pavement between the new development and the bank (now Starbucks). But, then, in the 1970s, the High Street became a pedestrian precinct anyway! So, the demolition of 51 High Street got underway in the summer of 1966. But that was not the end of the story. During demolition, what was described by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments as “a painted studwork wall C1600” [iv] was discovered. The photograph shows the wall in situ soon after it was discovered. Photograph RCHM Photograph RCHM Urgent discussions were held, and it was agreed that the wall should be removed for conservation. This photograph (on the left) shows a remarkable painted panel from the wall soon after conservation. The wall is now in the Stamford Museum Store carefully protected by a Perspex screen. The story of its removal and its remarkable journey from Stamford to Lincoln and back to Stamford would provide enough material for another article. Photograph of the wall in the Stamford Museum Store by R Asher Photograph - Richard Asher Also, found “built into the chimney was a limestone panel” [v] . This proved to be the stone in this photograph. The inscription has been translated [vi] as: Ye who enter this house Pray for Blanche wife of Lord Wake Daughter of Henry Earl of Lancaster On whom God have true mercy. It is believed that this was the memorial stone for Lady Blanche Wake, daughter of Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster. She was the great grand-daughter of Henry III. It is thought that she was buried in the Greyfriars Church in Stamford in 1380. How the stone found its way to the High Street is not known, but it could have been used as building material after the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s. The fully restored stone is now on the north wall of St George’s Church where the above photograph was taken. In conclusion, should 51 High Street have been allowed to be demolished? In my view it should not. Although dilapidated, and in need of substantial modernisation, it could have been repaired and conserved. However, the conservation movement, was not as advanced then as it is now. Whilst the property was a Listed Building, there was no conservation area legislation allowing planners to consider individual buildings in the wider street view context. Historic Buildings could only be considered on their own merits, not as a contribution to the street scene. On the plus side, if the building had not been demolished, we would never have been able to see two magnificent medieval artifacts which we have today – the painted wall and the Wake Memorial. Also, within a year or so of its demolition, Stamford was designated the first Conservation Area in the country under the new Civic Amenities Act – I like to think that this designation as the first Conservation Area was spurred on by the response to the demolition of 51 High Street. My boyhood memories of 51 High Street, helped me to appreciate the historic buildings of Stamford even more. [i] The firm name was changed in the 1950s to just Lyall & Co. [ii] “Stamford Assets a catalogue of Newcombe Family Property”, John Daffurn, Eptex 2024. [iii] “ Stamford Pubs and Breweries ” Martin Smith, Spiegl Press 2006 [iv] The Town of Stamford, A Survey by the Royal Commission on Historical Monument s” HMSO, London 1977 [v] ibid [vi] Taken from “ Grey Friars or White Friars? In search of Stamford’s Friaries”, Linda Ball, Chalybate Books, 2021. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back Parliamentary Election 1847 (Hustings and Poll) Chris Hunt 2022 On Friday July 30th 1847 the hustings for the Parliamentary election in Stamford were erected in Broad Street for the candidates to present themselves for nomination before the electors of the Borough. It was the first true contested election in the town for nearly forty years and the growing unrest in both the middle and lower classes uniting against the Burghley interest meant that there was a real possibility of political change. Both believed that the economic future was dependent on the London to York railway passing through the town and that the Marquis of Exeter was working to prevent such a route. An expansion of the town and its numbers of voters would have of course destroyed for ever his control. The independent minded amongst the Borough Council had found John Rolt Esquire as a candidate and using the George and Angel on St Mary’s Street as a base began their campaign with the support of Alderman Richard Newcomb – owner and proprietor of the Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. On the day of the hustings Mr Rolt and his supporters met up at the George and Angel to march to Broad Street, by the time they got there the crowd numbered close to two thousand. Lord Exeter’s nominees – the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries arrived slightly later with few supporters who were shouted at and hissed by the crowd. It was reported in the Stamford Mercury that all the remarks were in ‘good humour’. Once the initial formalities had been completed the nominations began. Doctor Hopkinson nominated the Marquis of Granby stating that the Marquis was a fit person to represent the town and having done so these last ten years. However, within his speech he highlighted a bill signed: ‘An Elector, to which it was stated that the Noble Lord’s and Mr Herries’s friends had been guilty of exercising undue influence. He begged distinctly to say that no influence of the kind had been put into practise’. This was met by cheers which were soon drowned out with hissing and cries of ‘It has’. Mr Cayley seconded the nomination speaking of the ability and integrity of the Marquis of Granby; however, most of his speech was drowned out by the crowd. Mr C.Haycock then proposed the Right Honourable John Charles Herries of Sevenoaks, Kent; as the second candidate for Stamford. The crowd by now had found its voice and it was a while before he began to speak. Much of which was drowned out by the crowd. Mr Henry Chase Atlay seconded the nomination. Mr Hatfield then came forward to nominate Mr Rolt, he was met with much cheering at which he stated that it was time that Stamford had its own representative. He stated that the question had to be considered ‘whether Lord Exeter should continue to usurp the power of returning both their members’. ‘it was a shame that any attempt should be made to prevent the electors to having at least some share in the choice’. He then reminded the crowd, although it was probably as much as a message to the Burghley candidates ‘that there was a standing order of the House of Commons which made it a high infringement of the Liberties of the People for a Peer of Parliament to interfere in elections to the House of Commons’. He reminded the crowd that such influence of the aristocracy would be able by legislation to coerce both the Crown and the People. He then stated that ‘it was a maxim of the constitution that the People should not be taxed without their consent; but that principle became an absurdity when the electors were prevented from choosing whom they thought proper to vote the taxes, and were threaten with pains and penalties, which being turned out of their houses, or deprived of their trade or means of living, if they made a free and conscientious selection’. He then stated that suffrage was not given as a right for a man’s own benefit, it was a privilege for the benefit of his fellow man. He then spoke of the loss of freemen’s right because of a lack of proper representation, an issue which closely touched on the majority of the adult male population of the town. Whether or not they had the vote. In finishing his speech he raised the issue of the mainline railway passing through the town and; ‘to serious loss the town was likely to experience by the carrying to a distance of the Great Northern Railway through the Marquis of Exeter’s opposition to it from pecuniary motives’. In proving this point he reminded the crowd how the Marquis had offered land to the railway company at ‘monstrous terms’ compared with prices he had been willing to buy land only a few years previous. Mr G.H.Betts then seconded Mr Rolt’s nomination. After mentioning issues around the Corn Law and Game Laws he too raised the issue of the north-south railway and ‘the scandalous manner in which the town had been cheated out of the advantages of railway communication from North to South’. The support of the gathered crowd at the hustings was very much in support of John Rolt for when the Marquis of Granby addressed the crowd he was met with a ‘storm of hissing’. When he finally spoke he attempted to defend his position on the Great Northern Railway, he had met a deputation from Stamford on the matter and that he had told them ‘that he would consult Lord Exeter on the subject’ produced laughter in the crowd. He then stated that ‘in doing so, he believed he had acted honourably and fairly’, a wag in the crowd was recorded as heckling; “Yes, to Lord Exeter, but not to the town’. When asked by Mr Tebbutt whether the Marquis would support the railway bill if it was reintroduced, stated ‘I will pledge myself to nothing’. He then stated that he had supported the increase to the Maynooth Grant - a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland - , alterations to the Corn Laws and the Ten-Hours Factory Bill. Mr Herries then addressed the crowd and he too was met with much hissing and groans. He stated that he had twenty-year’s service in Parliament of which ten years had been as a minister, latterly as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that Stamford was exempt from corruption which antagonised the crowd. There was more heckling about why having been elected eight times for Harwich he was now standing in Stamford. His view on secret ballots when asked by an electorate was that such a change would be against the ‘honesty of Englishmen’. After stating that those who had the vote should use them and those who do not should make no noise, so aggravated the crowd that the cry that ‘You have insulted the nonvoters and so we will not hear you’ was the end of his address. He just gave up. Mr Rolt then addressed the crowd. He stated that he would come ‘to the great question’, which was ‘whether the constituency of Stamford should be free’. He reported to the crowd that he had spoken to many of them and that he had been told that although they wanted him to be elected to Parliament they could not vote for him because of their fears of ‘ejected from their houses or lose some of their customers’. His view on the Corn Laws was that they should be given a fair trial and if they if they were not of benefit and led to the ruin of agricultural interests then there should be a return to protectionism. He also stated that he supported the use of public taxes for the education of the People. Mr Rolt then touched on other aspects, including, the Maynooth grant, the Health of Towns Bill, the Poor Law, the Great Northern Railway measure; his views on these matters being supported by the crowd. He finally asked the Electors to ‘assert their independence’ in voting for him. The nominations being received the call for the vote was heard and the Mayor declared Mr Rolt and the Marquis of Granby elected. At this point Mr Haycock on behalf of Mr Herries demanded a poll. Mr Rolt was then escorted by a large crowd to his residence in Rock Terrace and on the Friday evening he addressed a meeting at the George and Angel. The polling commenced on Saturday morning at about 8.00am and was carried on till about 11.00am, all the time the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries being in front. Shortly after 2.00pm with the populous become more and more tumultuous and Mr Rolt realising that there was insufficient votes still to be polled agreed to ‘resign the contest’. After the books were closed the Mayor declared that the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries had been elected and the votes cast were: For the Marquis of Granby 359 For Mr Herries 290 For Mr Rolt 234 The Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries after saying a few words at the Stamford Hotel after Mr Rolt resigned the contest left Stamford by train to London via Cambridge before the vote was declared. Whilst Mr Rolt addressed a large crowd at the George and Angel stating that he would be willing to stand again in the Borough and that the reason for his defeat was that twenty-three voters had promised to vote on his behalf but had been ‘induced by customary means’ to vote for Mr Herries and that others who had stated that they were going to remain neutral recorded their votes for the Burghley nominees. The following week it was being reported in the Stamford Mercury how the recent contested election had passed so quietly. Although, it was noted that by some that they would have voted differently if the Marquis of Exeter’s agents had not been present. Unfortunately, the political future in Stamford over the next few years was hardly quiet. Resulting in violence at subsequent Municipal elections, alleged corruption in the ‘buying of votes’, Burghley Tenants thrown out of their homes, and an investigation of the Parliamentary election by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Chris Hunt A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back David Cecil's Will and David Cecil's Wife: Two Notes Professor Alan Rogers 2012 William Cecil, Lord Burghley was obsessed with his family history. He continually sought and obtained information and produced several contradictory pedigrees; so any light that can be thrown on earlier generations of Cecils is valuable. David Cecil of Stamford, his grandfather, Alderman (i.e. mayor) and MP for the town, was a particular concern; for someone had charged Lord Burghley with being the son of an innkeeper (a story which is still repeated). This is not true: the basis for it is that David was given the Tabard in Stamford by John Dyccons glover, councillor and Alderman of Stamford in the 1490s and almost certainly father-in-law of David Cecil, to be used for his (Dyccons’) will. A full biography of David Cecil will be published shortly in Nottingham Medieval Studies (Alan Rogers, ‘The Parliamentary representation of Stamford, 1467-1509’). This note concerns two matters; his will and his wife. David Cecil’s will David Cecil made two wills. One is dated the Conversion of St Paul (25 January) 1535 [i.e. 1535/6] (PRO PROB 11/29 fol 2d-3) and the other (strangely) is dated the Conversion of St Paul 1536 [i.e. 1536/7] (to be found in British Library Cotton iv 29; it has been wrongly indexed as referring to the rector of St Peter’s church, Stamford, which is why it has been missed to date). It seems clear that the Cotton version was a draft and inaccurately dated, for it was the 1535/6 will which was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in March 1541/2, not the will dated 1536/7. There are a small number of differences between the provisions made in the two drafts. The sequence varies, and some items in the draft will are split apart. One clause in the draft is repeated twice in the final version. Two additional clauses relate to an extra payment to St George’s church and to the sale of swans for the benefit of David’s soul. The final will is then slightly longer than the draft will, with 39 clauses instead of 35. The wording of each clause varies from time to time. Richard Cecil remains sole executor to both; in the draft will, he is subject to the supervision of John Haryngton of Exton but this is not stated in the final will. The witnesses are very different. WILL OF DAVID CECIL January 1535/6 PRO Version In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversawn off seynt Paule Anno dni millesimo quingentesimo tricesimo quinto I David Cyssell of Stamford in the Countie of Lyncoln Esquier being of good and perfytt Remembrance in mynd, also well and perfitly deliberat make my testament and last Wyll in this maner and fourme following First I bequith my soule to almightie god and to our blessid lady seynt mary mother of mercy, and to all the glorious company of hevyn, and my body to be buryed in the parishe churche of seynt George of Stamford aforeseyd. Item I give to the high aulter of seynt George of Stamford ijs. Item to our ladyes works of lyncoln xijd. Item I will that my wyfe shall have all the plate that was hers before that I maryed her and also all other goodes of household that was hers at oure mariage. Also I give to my seyd wyffe Twenty ky[n]e and a bulle of myn owne goods in recompence of suche catell as she brought to me. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two horses and two mares. Item I give to my seyd wife Thirtie seme of malte and Ten scyme of Wheate and Ten scyme of barley and Threscore shepe, that ys to sey, ffouretie old shepe and Twenty lambes. And also I give to my seyd wyfe Twenty Lodes of wood. I give to my seyd wife two fetherbeds, one in the Nursery and an other in the Closet where she lyeth in. Item I give to my seyd wyff the bed and bedsted with the hengings of silke as yt stonds complete in the gesse Chamber by the strete. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a marke of Swannes markyd with laduls streght up and down the byll and the legges and she to enyoie yt to her and her assignes for ever. Item I give to Richard Cissell my eldest sone two complete fetherbeddes one over the Closett and another over the parlour as they stonde holy. Item I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to David my secounde sone two fetherbeddes complete, one at the steyrhed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fetherbed. Item I give to my seyd wyfe all my londs in Stamford in Nassyngton and els where for the terme of her lyff and after her departing I will that all my seyd londs do remayn to my seyd sone Richard Cissell and to his heires for ever. Item I give to my doughter Joane Twenty pounds sterling in mony or in mony worthe and that to be delyvered to Joane my wyfe being her naturall mother, to be in save custody of her seyd mother for the preferment and promocion of her maryage. Item I give to the fowre ordurs off freyers of Stamford to praye for me vjs viijd to every one of the seyd orders. Item I give to Jone my doughter the one half of household stuff at Dowsby as in brasse, pewter and bedding hangings lynyn and other stuf remayning at Dowsby and all this stuf to be in custodye of Jane my wyf unto the tyme of mariage off Joane my seyd doughter. Item I give to Richard Cyssell my sone all my titill and interest that I have in the Chantre londes that ys gyven for the fynding of a prest to singe for Sir Davyd Phillip in seynt Marys churche in Stamford. Also I give to my seyd/// sone Richard all my tytle and interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Stamford and in all other places the whiche John Dycons left to be song for by a prest in seynt mary churche aforeseyd for his soule and all crysten soules. Item I give to David Cyssell my secounde sone Twenty quarters of barley to be delyvered to hym by myn executour by four and of this side the feast of seynt Marten in Wynter next to folowe the dey of my departing from this lyfe and to be taken out of my Croppe that growith or may growe in Tynwell feelds. Item I will that two of my merke of swannes herebefore not bequeathed be solde by myn executour and the mony takyn for them to be dispoased for my soule. Item I will that all the hangings, tabulls, trestells and formes and other ymplyments in my halle, in my grete parlour and in my galery on the south syde of my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne ther as standers or heirelowms for ever. Item I bequeth to my wife ffyfty quarters of malte. Twenty quartetrs of barley. Ten quarters of wheate and xl lodes of wood. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two cuppes of sylver parcell gilte with covers, and a pece called the horne all gylt. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a pece gilt with the whetesheef in the bottom, the whiche I gaffe her before our mariage. Item I will that she have all her goods off household that were hers at the daye of oure mariage in as good state and repare as they were the same daye. Item I give to my sone Richard my best gowne and the choyse. Item I will that Anthony Vyllers have the secound gowne, my best dublett and my velvet Jackett. Item I wille that David my sone have my blake gowne of clothe lyned with damaske, a dublet of satten stoked, with a Jackett and my grene coate. Item will that Sir William Huddeston sing for my soule and all Crysten soules the one hole yere in the churche of seynt George in Stamford and to have v li for his stypent.fyve pounds sterling. Item I will that ther be given for the helth of my soule that three days xx li, that ys to sey at the daye off my buryall,, at the vijth daye and at the xxx ti daye. Item I give to the high aulter off seynt George for tythes and offerings not perfatly donne vjs viijd. Item I will that my detts be payd of my goods laufully knowen and axed. Item I will that every servaunte of myn household have blak coats. Item I will that Richard Wyer have a fetherbed. Item I ordeyn and make my seyd sone Richard Cissell my sole executour, to dispoase the resydue of my goods above or otherwise not given nor bequeathed for the honor of god and for the helth of my soule after the laudable maner that he can do or devyse. These being wytnes Sir Thomas Wenstare notary, John Bocher and Richard Wyre with many others. Probate at London 16 March 1541 David M. Loades , The Cecils: privilege and power behind the throne, London: The National Archives, 2007, following S T Bindoff , The House of Commons, 1509-1558, vols i-iii, Members, London: Secker and Warburg, 1982 , dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen, it is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1535/6. The will was proved in March 1541/2. COPY OR DRAFT WILL OF DAVID CECIL dated January 1536/7 BL Cotton Ch iv 29 In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversyon off Saynt Paule Anno dni millimo cccccmo tricesimo sexto I Davyd Cyssell off Stannford in the Countie of Lincoln Esquyer being off good and perfytt Remembraunce, In mynd also well and deliberate make my testament and last Wyll in maner and fforme ffoloyng. First I (bese del ) bequeth my soule to almyty god and to oure blessyd lady mother off mercy and to all the gloryouse Company off hevyn and my body to be buryed in the quere off Saynt George off Stannford aforesayd. Also I gyff to the hye aultar off Saynt George for tythes and offeryng not perfytely done vjs viijd. Item to oure ladyes werks off Lincoln xijd. Item I wyll that my wyffe shall have all the plate that was hyrs before that I maryed hyr. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij coppys off sylver parcell gylte with covers, a pece callyd the horn all gylte. Also I gyffe to my said wyffe a pece gylt with the whetesheffe in the bottom the which I gaffe hyr before our maryage. Also I wyll that she have all hyr good off howshold that were hyrs at the day of oure maryage in as good state and repayre as thei were that same day. Also I gyff to my said wyffe xxti ky[n]e and a bull off myn owne goods in recompence off such catell as she brought to me. Item I gyff to my said wyffe ij horsys and ij marys. Also I gyffe to my said [sic] l quarters of malte xxti quarters of Barleye, x quarters of wheite xlti lods of woode. And lx shepe that is to say xl old shepe and xx lambys. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij feytherbedds one in the Nursery and one other in the Clossett wher she lyethe. Also I gyff to my said wyffe (ij fetherbedds del ) the bed and bedsteid with the hyngyngs of sylke as it standeth complete in the gesse Chamber bye the strete. Also I gyff to my said wyffe a marke of Swanys merkyd with ladull streight upp and down the byll and the legge and she to enioye it to hyr and hyr assignes for ever. Also I gyff to Richard Cyssell myn eldest son ij complete fetherbedds one over the Clossett and one other over the parlure as they stand holly. Also I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to Davyd my second son ij feyther bedds complete, one at the stayr hed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fether bedd. Also I wyll that Davyd my said son shall have my blakke gown off clothe lyned with damaske and a dublett off saten stokked, a jackett and my grene cote. Also I gyff to Antonye Villers my second gown, my best dublett and my velvett jackett. Also I gyff to my said wyffe all my lands in Staunford in Nassington and els’ where for the term of hyr lyffe and after hyr departyng I wyll that all my said lands do remayne to my said son Richard Cycell and to his heyres for ever. Also I gyff to my doughter Jone xx li sterlyng in money or money wurthe and to be delyveryd to Jane my wyffe beyng hyr naturall mother, to be in save custodye off hyr said mother for preferment and promocion off hyr maryage. Also I gyff to every one off the four orders off frers off Staunford to pray for me vjs viijd. Item I gyff to Jhone my doughter the one half off howsehold stuffe at Dowsebeys as in brasse, pewter and beddyng hangyngs lynen and other stuff remaynyng at Dowsebye and all the stuff to be in custodye off Jane my wyffe unto the tyme off maryage off Jhone my said doughter. Also I gyffe to Richard Cyssell my son all my tytle and interest that I have in the Chauntre londs that be gyven for the fyndyng off a preste to syng for Sir Davyd Phylypp in saynt Marys Churche in Staunford. Also I gyff to my said sonne Richard all my tytle and Interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Staunford and in all other placys the which John Dycons left to be song for by a preste in saynt marys Church aforesaid for his soule and all crysten soulys. Also I gyff to Davyd Cyssell my second son xxti quarters off barley to be delyveryd to hym by myn executour before and over this half ffest of Saynt Martyn in Wynter next to ffolowe the day off my departyng from this lyffe and to be taken out off my Cropps that groweth or may growe in Tynwell ffelds. Also I wyll that my detts be payd off my goods laufully known and askyd. Also I wyll that all the hangyngs, tabulls, trestylls and fformes and other Implyments in the hall, in my greit parlure and in my galery on the south syde off my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne theyr as standerds or heyre lomes for ever. Item I wyll that Sir William Huddylston shall syng for my Soule and ( del ) all Crysten souls by the space of one yere next after my departyng in saynt George Churche in Staunford and shall have v li for hys stypend. Also I gyff to every off my servaunts a blakke cote off clothe and to Richard Wyre my servaunt a fetherbed. Item I wyll that theyr be gyven for the helthe off my soule and all Cristen souls at iij days xx li, that is to say at the day off my buryeng, at the vij thday and the xxx ti day. The Residue off my goods unbequethyd I gyff and bequeth unto Richard Cycell my son whom I make my sole executour, he to have ( del ) occupie and enioye my said goods to the payment and contentacion off my detts and the fulfyllyng and performacion off thys my testament and last wyll. Also I ordeyn and make Mr John Haryngton of Exton supervisour off this mye testament, to whom I gyff and bequeth an horse. Thes beyryng wytnes Sir David Smyth parson off Saynt George my gostly ffather, Mr Andrew Gannow, John Alen, Sir William Sherman vicar of Maxsey, Sir Wyllam Huddilston and other. There are no signatures or any other markings – no endorsements except those of the Cotton collection. This document is on paper, clearly written. It is either a copy of the will or a draft; we need to compare it against the probate copy to see if there are changes. There are a few deletions which could be the result of miscopying or drafting errors. Loades, following Bindoff, dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen this one is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1536 – i.e. 1537. The will was proven in March 1541/2. The description of the house is the main feature of this will. David Cecil’s first wife Lord Burghley recorded David Cecil’s first wife (his grandmother) as Alice, daughter of John Dyccons of Stamford, and this has been repeated in every pedigree so far. That she was the daughter of Dyccons seems certain although there is no direct evidence. Dyccons asked Cecil to use the proceeds from the Tabard for masses for his soul, and the town council gave to Cecil the waits’ badges which Dyccons as councillor held. But the gild book of St Katherine’s gild (which is strictly contemporary) records that in November 1497, David Cecil and his wife Agnes were admitted to gild (Gonville and Caius MSS 266/670 fol 39d; see Alan Rogers 2011 Act Book of St Katherine’s Gild 1480-1534 Bury St Edmunds : abramis publishers). There is no other known mention of her name; she entered the household of Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and died in that household in 1507 (St John’s College, Cambridge, SJCC D91.19 fols 30, 34) – well before William Cecil was born. We can only assume that Lord Burghley was misinformed. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back October 31st 1940 - The Luftwaffe Comes to Stamford. An eyewitness account. Geoff Jones and N.J. Sheehan In 2024, eyewitness Dorothy Pridmore recalled the early moments of the attack on the town 84 years previously. ‘I was 13 years old and a pupil at Stamford High School. I was at Stamford Railway Station waiting to take the train to Oakham to meet my parents on my way home from school to Seaton where we lived. It was a cold winter’s day and I had taken shelter in the waiting room when I heard what I thought were hailstones hitting the railway tracks. They were actually bullets being fired from the German plane as it approached the town from the direction of Leicester. After a train passed through the station, schoolboys went onto the tracks to retrieve the bullets. No-one was hurt and I was able to cross the railway bridge to the westbound platform to catch my train.’ More information regarding the events of that day can be found in Articles under the title ‘The Luftwaffe Comes to Stamford’ A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A List of Stamford Aldermen, 1398-1457 Chris Hunt 2022 Francis Howgrave in his 1726 book: An Essay of The Ancient and Present State of Stamford , listed ‘Aldermen of the Gild’ from 1398 to 1457. He states that Stamford was governed by prescriptive Magistrates long before King Edward IV’s Charter, but due to rebellious times, ill kept records and the town consumed by fire, many of Stamford’s records were lost. But, George Hill, Steward of the Town, and Alderman in 1662, had preserved a Roll listing sixty Aldermen prior to George Chapman who is mentioned as Alderman in the Edward IV Charter, sealed in 1462. 1398 George Wyches 1399 Stephen Maxey 1400 Robert Locksmith 1401 John Stanby 1402 Thomas Storine 1403 Thomas Spicer 1404 Ralph Harwood 1405 John Palfreeman 1406 Ralph Browne 1407 John Stacy 1408 Alexander Haine 1409 Robert Locksmith (2) 1410 Thomas Basset 1411 John Browne 1412 William Locksmith 1413 John Stanby (2) 1414 John Palfreeman (2) 1415 Alexander Mercer 1416 John Allock 1417 Andrew Draper 1418 Thomas Basset (2) 1419 John Browne 1420 Thomas Ralph 1421 Thomas Spicer (2) 1422 John Palfreeman (3) 1423 John Whitsade 1424 John Browne 1425 Robert Bendboar 1426 Thomas Basset (3) 1427 Thomas Spicer (3) 1428 John Longe 1429 John Page 1430 Richard Lee 1431 Laurence Melton 1432 William Marwood 1433 Richard Lee (2) 1434 Laurence Melton (2) 1435 William Browne 1436 William Marwood (2) 1437 Richard Lee (3) 1438 Robert Browne 1439 William Sturton 1440 Thomas Balksay 1441 William Browne (2) 1442 John Page (2) 1443 Richard Lee (4) 1444 Laurence Melton (3) 1445 John Browne 1446 William Browne (3) 1447 William Sturton (2) 1448 Richard Blagwin 1449 Thomas Gregory 1450 John Browne 1451 Laurence Melton (4) 1452 John Gregory 1453 John Page (2) 1454 William Hickham 1455 William Sturton (3) 1456 Thomas Gregory (2) 1457 William Browne (4) Notes The ( ) next to an aldeman indicates the number of times he held that office. There is no such number against John Browne as not all the persons listed above in the name are the same Alderman. For instance a John Browne died in July 1442, and a John Browne was again Alderman in 1462. Some genealogists list four generations of John Browne in Stamford. However, the William Browne who was Alderman in 1435, 1441, 1446 and 1457, did go on to be an Alderman in 1466 and 1470. Francis Howgrave does not list Aldermen for the years 1458, 1459, and 1460. The late Professor Alan Rogers published an article in Lincolnshire History & Archaeology Vol 41 (2006) which lists earlier Aldermen, variants, and analysis on the above list using deeds and leases. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back THE ARCHIVE OF ST MICHAEL’S CHURCH, STAMFORD John S Hartley 2023 WHEN St Michael’s Church closed in the 1960s, a very large collection of parish books and papers was left in a vestry upstairs at the east end of the south gallery. A large (memory suggests a couple of metres tall, probably a metre and a half wide and perhaps 50cm deep – but memory may exaggerate!) glazed front bookcase contained items like rate books, vestry and poor law minute books. There were also papers and books which had gathered over many years, sermon notes, forms of service for various occasions and such like covered with the dust of ages! There was also a substantial, if not especially old, wooden chest containing several hundred bundles of paper, some neatly wrapped in old sugar paper, most tied up with string. It was clear that many had not been opened since their contents had been gathered rather more than one hundred years earlier. There was the occasional loose item, while some key documents, required for reference, had been saved in separate files. Some of the documents were numbered within bundles. Every year, after accounts had been presented to what is now called the Annual Church Meeting, those parish officers who had been responsible during the previous year collected the vouchers (often receipted bills) which supported their accounts. Members of the parish would have been able to check the vouchers against the account books as one means of proving fraud had not taken place. Once accepted the vouchers would have “become history”, often becoming waste paper unless, perhaps surviving until some energetic soul gathered them into some sort of logical order. Many probably succumbed to the waste paper drives of the Second World War. Amazingly hundreds of so-called vouchers, bills and receipts, with the other papers resulting from parochial administration, survived at St Michael’s from the eighteenth century. Before 1834 parishes acted as the unit of local government dealing with such things as the Poor Law, Workhouses, and Highways as well as all the ecclesiastical matters. So these surviving collected papers of St Michael’s were and are of considerable interest. The documents quoted below give a very small idea of the personal interest and significance of these papers – which were removed from St Michael’s for safe keeping at the Town Hall. Subsequently the parish books have been taken to Lincoln to be stored with the Diocesan Archives – hopefully the other papers are safely there also …. The family name appearing below will be familiar to many Stamfordians. The documents are self-explanatory, showing how people in extreme poverty were helped (perhaps) by the so-called Poor Laws. The first is dated the day before Christmas Eve (shades of Dickens?) REMOVAL ORDER Robert Glen Boughton & Family St Michaels PR 56/12 The Town or Borough of To the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of STAMFORD the Parish of All Saints in the said Borough, and to the in the County of Lincoln. Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Saint Michael there and to each and every of them UPON the Complaint of the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of All Saints aforesaid, in the said Borough unto us whose Names are hereunto set and Seals affixed, being two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the said Borough, and one of us of the Quorum, that Robert Glenn Boughton, Sarah his wife and their four children namely Robert aged nine years Sarah aged seven years Henry aged four years and John aged six months Have come to inhabit in the said Parish of All Saints not gained a legal Settlement there, and that the said [RGB etc] Are now chargeable to the said Parish of All Saints………………… 23 December 1824 Vouchers – 16/49 8 Apr 1826 Boots for Glenn Boughton 16/35 11 May 1826 G Boughton’s rent paid 16/57 23 June 1826 G Boughton’s rent paid 16/21 29 Sept 1826 G Boughton’s rent paid 16/10 18 Jan 1827 G Boughton’s rent paid LETTER FROM ABOVE [spelling etc as in original] Ibid 26A/2 Stamford March 26th 1829 My Good Gentlemen, I sincerely hope and trust that you will pardon the liberty I have taken in troubling you with thease few lines as I can assure you that it is Necessity which compels me so to do. I beg leave to inform you that I am at this time indebted to Mr Robert Hunt the sum of £2 – 10 – 0 for a half years rent which became Due as Yesterday. I have been trying my best endeavours to get the money for him but I find it is impossible to get more than £1 – 5 – 0 of it and unless it is paid this Day me and my family shall be turned into the Streets. I can assure you that in consequence of the severity of the Winter and the Dearness of the Bread me and my family has been almost hined [??pined] and starved out as we have had only Ten Shillings per week to maintain seven of us with and it is constantly cost Seven Shillings per week out of it for Bread alone. Therefore I humbly trust that you will take it into your serious Considerations and Assist me with a trifle in this case and I promise never to trouble you any more and the Goodness shall forever be remembered with thanks and Gratitude by your humble servt. R. Glenn Boughton Thursday Afternoon Vouchers – 48/44 2 Oct 1829 Coffin for Boughton’s child ANOTHER LETTER FROM THE ABOVE Ibid 15/24 Undated but in Overseers Papers for 1833-4 My Good Sir I sincerely hope and trust that you will pardon the liberty I have taken in troubling you with thease few lines as I can Assure you that I am compeld by Necessity so to do. I am compeld to ask the goodness of you to let me have a trifle towards buying a pare of Shoes as I can Assure you that I am at this time quite bare foot so bad that I can scarce get to my work. I realy whould not have applied to you but my Family being so large and my Wages so very small I realy have it not in my power to get them. I have been measured for a pare at mr Spademans this month past which is to be twelve shillings. Therefore if you will take it into your consideration and assist me with a trifle for them I shall be very thankfull, and remain Yours &c Hunts Yard Robert Glenn Boughton You might ask many questions about these letters – could Boughton write or did somebody write these appeals for him? Did he really have to move from All Saints parish to St Michael’s? 70% of income spent on bread? What more do we know about Broughton and his family? But whatever the case may be – there were other letters among St Michael’s papers like these, many much older. And hundreds of bills and receipts also. It remains for someone to look at what was happening in each of the parishes in the town (not forgetting across the county boundary into St Martin’s). Poor Law studies, about its administration, used to be popular – but each parish had its own peculiar story to tell about, largely totally forgotten now. John S Hartley A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next