< 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

< Back The Stamford Institution John S Hartley 2018 THE STAMFORD INSTITUTION – the “Graeco-Egyptian” building on the north side of St Peter’s Hill. Foremost among the cultural societies in Stamford in the mid-nineteenth century was the Literary and Scientific Institution, which had been founded in 1838. By 1850 the first general enthusiasm had worn off, and in 1851 its Annual Report was critical of the absence of the local clergy ‘who from their mental cultivation and general pursuits were eminently qualified in this way to convey information and sound instruction to the members.‘ Lectures were poorly attended, people preferring, so the President stated, ‘slackness of attendance at Lectures from which valuable information might have been obtained; whilst such frivolous exhibitions as those of “Bloomers” and conjurors were crowded.’ There were problems, however, for ‘no lecturers had offered themselves during the past year, a circumstance to be attributed ‘ the President believed, ’to the disturbance of the ordinary current of events by the Great Exhibition.’ During the nineteenth century membership fluctuated considerably; in 1851 there were 136 members but by 1856 there were some 316 paid up members, a most impressive number for such a relatively small country town. However, some saw the Institution as a force for the education of the ‘lower classes’ and there were too few, so it was thought, of such people who were members. A Mr. Chapman reflected, in 1853, upon the fact that it was regrettable that although shops closed early, few assistants used their spare time wisely. ‘They had not joined reading societies, and he feared they had imbibed (sic) habits which severely taxed their resources, and in the pursuit of pastime which was neither conducive to their health nor mental improvement.’ Attempts were made to provide lectures which were educational and which covered a very wide range of topics. In 1854 a writer in the Annual Report observed that it was ‘easier to train the juvenile taste than to correct old habits – to mould the infant mind than to change the adult idiosyncracy.’ A series of lectures on Human Physiology had a total of over 2000 attendances, while other single lectures in the same year, 1854, included subjects like the Uses of Poetry, the Circulation of the Blood, the Origins and Uses of Coal, and Sanitary Science. On the lighter side there was a lecture on Popular Illusions, while in the following year the best attended lectures were probably those by George Grossmith author (with his brother Weedon) of The Diary of a Nobody, who spoke on Lecturing, and Wit and Humour. He was a regular visitor to the Institution, and his lectures were generally very popular indeed though the most at any one meeting in the 1850’s and 1860’s seems to have been when 319 attended a lecture on Microscopical Science. On occasion, lectures had a relevance to the town and its immediate problems. When the local Medical Officer of Health spoke to members in 1868 he chose as his subject Drainage and the Water Supply of Towns, and this was later published by the printer to the Institution, John Ford of Red Lion Square. Newman’s theme was the unsanitary nature of the cesspits and pools which were scattered all over the town. He proposed the use of earth closets, and the closure of all open wells. Water, he argued, should be supplied to all the town from the springs to the north-east and east of the town. Two years later Newman’s summary of the state of the town and his plans for improvement were echoed in an official report. As well as providing series of lectures, the Institution had a substantial library, containing over 6000 volumes in 1862, from which members might borrow. At first there were limitations on borrowing since it was felt that quarterly members (generally of the ‘lower classes‘), who paid a considerably lower subscription than annual members, might damage the books they borrowed! [see the 1845 letter to the Mercury at the end of this article]. This fear seems to have been overcome, perhaps through a pair of lectures in 1855, entitled What is a Gentleman? and The Elevation of the Working Classes. Newspapers were taken in the Reading Room, and there was also a sizeable museum, though this appears to have been mainly a casual collection of items. Members, like Samuel Sharp, printer and publisher, and no mean geologist, may well have ensured that some parts of the collections were satisfactorily arranged. For a time there was a flourishing Chess Club. The finances of the Institution were never very secure - far too much reliance seems to have been placed on meeting any extra-ordinary expenses out of profits from special events and the shareholders, who had helped to build the magnificent headquarters on St. Peter’s Hill in 1842, had frequently to go without any dividends at all. Most years a ball was held to raise money, and in 1855 a ‘Panorama of the Seat of War in the Crimea’ was exhibited at the Mid-Lent Fair, partly for the benefit of the funds of the Institution. One source of income which was both uncertain and insubstantial was the Camera Obscura on the roof of the building. There were several attempts to encourage people to take advantage of it, but it made little money and was removed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In spite of all its failings, the Stamford Literary and Scientific Institution played an important part in the life of mid-Victorian Stamford. With its lectures, library and museum under the same roof it provided something which no other single organisation provided in Stamford. The Institution survived until 1910 when all its effects were sold; the library and museum, both containing important items relating to Stamford, were scattered. From sale catalogues it is possible to gain some idea of the value and content of its collections, and it must be a cause of great regret that they were not preserved intact. Part of the reason for the closing of the Institution is probably to be found in the lack of regular support from the most influential members of’ the town establishment, but the opening of the Town Library in 1906 must have further undermined the already shaky, financial position of the Institution. Notes Sources for a History of the Stamford Literary and Scientific Institution. This article has been based on the annual reports and minute books, to be found in the Phillips Collection Room in the Town Hall. Further information about meetings, the closure etc. will be found in the local papers. Many handbills and notices survive in various collections. John S. Hartley To the EDITOR of the MERCURY. Sir,-By a droll coincidence, I find in one column of your last week's paper the letter of Juvenis, complaining that the quarterly members of the Stamford Institution are dissatisfied at not being allowed to take books out of the library; and in another column, that even villages are applying to be admitted as branches to, and to be supplied with books from, the Lincoln Institution. This is indeed a queer contrast; and it is not to be wondered at that members should be seceding from our Stamford Institution and (as stated in your paper two or three weeks ago, from their report) that at Lincoln the number of quarterly members is constantly increasing, and that the Committee are thereby enabled to expend liberal sums in the purchase of new books. We read that in the early days after the Reformation, when copies of the scriptures were few, bibles were affixed in churches, but chained so as not to be carried away; now, our religious societies are circulating the scriptures in the prisons and the abodes of poverty at home, and among the heathen abroad. At Stamford, as "Juvenis" justly complains, he cannot take home with him such excellent works as the "Bridgwater Treatises," because forsooth bound volumes are sealed books to mere quarterly subscribers; whilst in the more fortunate vicinity of Lincoln, not only available are those works containing the writings of Sir Charles Bell, Dr. Buckland, Prout, Roget Chalmers, and the plebeian quarterlies (and even to the juveniles who may choose to read them), but such books are, it seems, likely to be sent forth to enlighten abroad, and to be at the service of the reading public in the villages. Do, Mr. Editor, urge upon certain members of the Committee the necessity of a journey to Lincoln. Stamford, Dec.30, 1845.Your's &c.,SENSEX. A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath Previous Next

< Back The Social Impact of the Church in Victorian Stamford John F H Smith Lecture for Stamford Museum’s Winter Lecture Series, given 26 March 1998. (The transcript of the lecture has been edited by Dr N J Sheehan. with the author’s permission, for publication on the SLHS website) Editorial comment – This article contains references applicable and relevant to around the year 1998. Readers should take account of this and make the necessary allowances. To historians it is one of those well-known facts that until the present century, church and state in England were inextricably mixed so that any discussion of the social impact of the church can cover the whole spectrum of social, personal, civic and political life. Tonight, I am going to consider two aspects of the social impact of the Church: . how the church system was integrated into the secular social administration of the town; . the social side of religion itself: the various charitable works it undertook or stimulated, and a look at how the different denominations and sects within the town saw and reacted to each other. The emphasis will be on the 19th century but I shall be taking examples from earlier as well as the 20th century. I chose the 19th century because it was an age of transition; a time when the old medieval institutions that had governed the country for hundreds of years were seen to be inadequate for a country undergoing the massive upheaval of an industrial revolution. And of course, we were the first in the world to undergo this; there were; no guidelines; no precedents! The upheaval was not less because Stamford was a small conservative country town on the sidelines of such changes. If anything, it perhaps made it more difficult; the need for change was less, yet was demanded by the spate of new legislation. It was perhaps the native conservatism of our town fathers, and a subtle adaptation of the nationally imposed legislation, that helped retain Stamford's character and uniqueness. Today, unless one lives in a Muslim state or in Northern Ireland, we have a problem of perception and understanding as to how church, state and social life could be so inextricably mixed. Curiously, we quite accept it with secular institutions - could anything be more medieval than parliament? - but in this post-Christian age we do not extend the same tolerance to the Church. We have less sympathy for, and certainly less understanding of, medieval church institutions done up in new, sometimes not so new, clothes playing such an important part in social life. This is particularly so since most of these roles have long been taken over by the state or purely secular charities. 1851 RELIGIOUS CENSUS There is no doubt over the statistic that today well over 95% of the population does not regularly go to church, and I think we are well above the average in Stamford with about 3% church attendance. It is most probable that a majority of the country does not even believe in the traditional Christian view of God. It is therefore very hard for us to imagine today the impact the Church had on everyday life, say 100 years ago, where virtually everyone believed in the Christian idea of a personal God and well over 50% of the population were regular churchgoers. As this average figure included the large new industrial cities where the churchgoing habit had largely been lost, it shows how solidly churchgoing were the smaller traditional towns such as Stamford. We are lucky in that we have some precise figures to substantiate this claim, as right in the middle of the century, at perhaps the apogee of Queen Victoria’s reign, 1851, the year of the Great Exhibition, a unique religious census of England and Wales was undertaken. Every Anglican incumbent, every Roman catholic priest, every dissenting minister was asked to fill in a return for attendances on Mothering Sunday, 30 March. The report, published in January 1854, concluded that 54% of the nation attended a church of some sort on that day, though modern historians have modified this figure to between 47% and 54%. While we think this an amazingly high figure, the Victorians thought it low and were shocked at the number of people who were not going to church. They were also shocked by how many dissenters there turned out to be, almost two thirds of Anglican numbers; particularly as before the fear had been of Roman Catholics, who turned out in fact to be fairly thin on the ground. One may argue about the accuracy of the census: the method of collecting, that the adjustments to account for people going to church more than once were extremely crude, that Stamford presented its own special problems - censuses being always held during fair week distorted the numbers of people in the town - but all these do not detract from the value of the survey and what it tells us about the church in Stamford. It shows us, for example, that church attendances on that Sunday were 79% of the population – 6776 out of a population of 8933. While, of course, this does not mean that 6776 people attended church, even using the census report's own crude calculations for double and triple churchgoers, it gives us a figure of 59% - 5% above the national average - which is what I suppose we should more or less expect. Actual figures may surprise us. Remembering that the town's population was only half what it is today, it was recorded that 850 people attended the evening service at St Michael's and, if one includes the Sunday school, well over 500 attended the morning service at St Martin's. Isn't it interesting that these are the most poorly attended churches today? In fact St Michael's was so poor that it was closed during the 1960s. It is also interesting to note that over 1,700 children attended the town's Sunday schools on that day, 500 of which were in the non-conformist schools. This is an extremely high proportion of school age children and probably reflects a number of reasons: piety (possibly more on the parents' part than the children themselves), getting the children out of the way for a while in crowded home conditions, and the patchiness of day school education - we mustn't forget this was 20 years before the Forster Education Act and 30 years before compulsory state education. The report also shows the relative support for the various denominations in the town. Roman Catholics were fairly thin on the ground at 3-4% of churchgoers, as the Stamford Mercury had also noted when the first RC chapel was being built in All Saints' Street in 1825, but this was about the national average. Dissent was much less strongly represented in Stamford than nationally - 29% of the churchgoing population as opposed to the 44% national average. This meant the Church of England was stronger - 67-8%, rather than the national 52%. Again, this confirms what we suspected: that Stamford was a very traditional and conservative town, with traditional beliefs, following the national established church. This, then, is the background. Let us now take a closer look at the church's influence upon town life. Just as we cannot appreciate fully the impact of Christian belief and strong churchgoing habits on the community, we are even less able to comprehend the part the church played in the civil administration of the town. The Anglican parish was the hub of the community and at the beginning of the 19th century carried out a wide range of duties that today we should see as the province of local government. It was: · the centre of the Poor Law a dministration and after the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was the basis of the groupings that made up the Poor Law Unions, · responsible for road maintenance and attendant paving and lighting (though it had the main arterial roads taken away from it during the 18th century with the establishment of turnpike trusts), · had the power to charge a separate church rate for the maintenance and repair of the parish church, · the basis for collecting tithes to pay the stipend or salary of the parson, · usually the stimulus for and controller of parishioners, and · generally ran a number of charities that had accumulated through the centuries. One of its major functions, therefore, was that of a statutory body with the power to raise taxes and, as such, was the centre of the civil administration of the town. Developed to administer a late medieval community, when there were no such things as dissenters (that is, non-conformists) and we were all part of one national church, there was no problem; but from the Reformation onwards society was not so homogeneous. There were considerable numbers of dissenters and Roman Catholics in the town who would grumble like the rest of us over the Poor Rate or Highways Rate, but would have a much more substantial and stronger objection to paying tithes for the stipend of the Anglican parson or paying rates for the repair of the parish church. THE VESTRY On the other hand, the system for its day was quite democratic. Parish administration was carried out by means of the vestry, a meeting of all parish residents with property qualifications (that is, a ratepayer but after 1869, merely an occupier) and was a very direct form of government. One did not elect members to represent you, but as a qualified parishioner you went along to take part directly and vote. It was almost an Athenian form of democracy. From the huge number of Stamford Mercury reports of vestry meetings, in Stamford they seem to have varied in size from a handful to over 200. From 1831 onwards legislation made it possible to streamline the system and elect smaller ‘select vestries’ to undertake parish business, but this opportunity was not taken up in Stamford. It seems to have been aimed at the larger towns and cities. This vestry was chaired by the rector or vicar (which of course gave him considerable power in addition to his right to appoint one of the two churchwardens) and met annually and as occasion demanded to elect officers and officials, and set parish rates. For example, in the early years of Queen Victoria's reign Stamford parish vestries were electing churchwardens, overseers of the poor, poor law guardians, surveyors of the highway, turnpike trustees, improvement commissioners and trustees for the various parish trusts, as well as appointing various officials, such as the parish watchmen, to carry out parish duties and fulfil legal requirements. As many of these posts carried a salary as well as to authority, the commissioning power of the vestry itself was considerable. The other side of the coin of Catholics and dissenters having to pay for things they didn't want - tithes and the church rate - was that they were equally represented on the vestry. As long as they fulfilled the residential and property qualifications, it didn't matter whether parishioners were Anglican, Roman Catholic, Dissenter or even atheists (though there were not many of these around at the time). All parishioners had their rights and could vote on the full complement of subjects, including the purely ecclesiastical. We therefore have the curious anomaly of Catholics and dissenters electing Anglican churchwardens as well as setting parish rates and the like. This right remains even today in vestigial form; any parish resident has the right to be on the church electoral roll and vote for the churchwardens at the annual vestry, a meeting that still precedes the parochial church council AGM. The powers of the parish were gradually eroded during the 19th century. I have already mentioned the removal of arterial roads maintenance to turnpike trusts, but in the 1830s came much larger inroads into the parish's powers. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was the first large dent and removed the ultimate responsibility for the "care" (I put that word in inverted commas) of the poor and destitute. From then on parishes were formed into unions, which in Stamford's case stretched from Clipsham to Stibbington, and while individual parishes still elected guardians to sit on the general board, parishes thereafter were hardly more than tax assessment and collecting areas. Sweeping in on the coat tails of the Great Reform Act of 1832, the Municipal Reform Act of 1835 made a formation of the borough council possible. This in turn led to further inroads in the secular powers of the parish with the creation of the Stamford Improvement Commission in the early 1840s. This removed from the parish things l ike roads, lighting, paving and embryonic planning controls. The demise of the parish as a secular body came in 1894 when an act established secular church councils as a further part of local government reform. Thus, within a space of 60 years the parish had been transformed from being the administrative hub of local government to being a secular irrelevancy. The situation is summed up by the position of the incumbent; he was demoted from being ex officio chairman of the old parish vestry with powers of both patronage and appointment to not being even a member of the new parish council unless standing for the election like anyone else. In Stamford, this demise should have been felt more strongly as there were no succeeding secular parish councils, the remaining powers devolving onto the more distant borough council. It is telling of the gradual decline of the old parish system that this was hardly noted at the time. ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW I want now to look in a little more detail at some of the functions of the parish in its heyday. Perhaps the largest social function the parish played in the life of the town was in the operation of the Poor Law. At the beginning of the 19th century the system of poor relief was based on Elizabethan legislation passed to deal with a very different society - an agrarian economy and with problems quite different from those of industrialisation three centuries later. One of the major problems in the 16th century had been caused by dissolution of the monasteries carried out by Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII. The monasteries had been an important source of relief for the poor, not only in direct aid but by sheltering from the world large numbers of monks and lay brothers. The end of direct relief, together with the release into the wider world of the large numbers whom the monasteries had previously sheltered, caused huge problems. It was also complicated by the change of farming practices in many parts of the country , that is, the turning over of large tracts of countryside to relatively labour free sheep farming, the practice that Thomas More railed against in his Utopia . This dispossessed many and added to the problem of able bodied, or “sturdy” vagrants as they were called, wandering the land. They were the phobia of the Elizabethans and one of the major stimuli behind their poor law legislation. The basis of this poor law administration was the church parish – thus the problem was transferred from one church organisation to another – and it was charged only with looking after its own poor and destitute. The problem of "sturdy vagrants" was merely shunted on to the next parish. Unfortunately, not all the wandering poor were "sturdy vagrants' and the old poor law could not cater for the truly destitute stranded away from their birthplace. It was therefore a great disincentive to the mobility of labour by the poor in a changing world. The other great debate in the early 19th century was that of outdoor relief. The old poor law allowed support to be given to families living in their own homes, who though possibly working still were too poor to support themselves - the parish workhouses were reserved for the destitute and homeless. This had led to the depression of wages and pauperism as employers saw that they would be made up to subsistence level by the community. This sort of abuse was patchy throughout the country and it has been claimed that the East Midlands suffered from it less than many other parts. However, the figures I shall produce in a minute show a different picture. There was therefore a very strong case for reform but like so much legislation, today as well as in the 19th century, it was a case of trying to save money as much as reform the abuses. The new poor law, that is, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, reformed the administration by grouping parishes into unions, and, for the first time in centuries, Stamford became the centre of a sensible administrative district, the Stamford Poor Law Union, a union of thirty-seven parishes stretching from Clipsham in the north to Stibbington in the south; from Tixover in the west to West Deeping in the east. Parish workhouses were replaced by a single union workhouse, built on the Barnack Road in 1836 at a cost of £3,645, situated where there is now a turn-of-the-century terrace set back from the road, a little before you come to Newage's. This workhouse was demolished in 1902 and replaced by a new one in Ryhall Road. This was, until recently, the St George's Home and the site is now occupied by the Whitefriars old people's homes. The other great change was the prohibition of outdoor relief and the establishment of the principle that life inside the workhouse must not compare with that of the poorest who were surviving outside. Arguably conceived from the best of motives, it left a pretty stark choice for those unfortunates who had to choose between starvation and the workhouse. I come from a generation old enough to have heard first hand tales that illustrated the horror of going into the workhouse that still persisted at the end of the century. Having said this, o utdoor relief was not entirely abolished in Stamford and there are a number of references to it in the Stamford Mercury , though as a report in 1851 [23.5.51:3.1] notes, “the check on vagrancy” (that old bugbear) “continues”. It was, as I said before, a case of our town fathers adapting national legislation to local needs. There are numerous literary illustrations of the harshness of the operation of the new poor law, Oliver Twist , for example, but real-life examples, I think, have more poignancy. I shall give only one to set the problem at our own doorstep. In September 1838, Catherine Whaley of St George’s parish received little justice from the system. Three weeks previously, her husband had run off leaving Catherine and their five children destitute. The Whaleys had been married eight years, but then it was discovered that the marriage had been bigamous. Mr Whaley had previously married another woman, with whom he had lived for three months! Catherine’s children were therefore “bastardised” (as the Mercury delicately puts it) and were dealt with accordingly by the law. The three children born before the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act had to be sent to the parish of their birth, so one was sent to Little Gonerby near Grantham and the other two were put in the charge of St George’s parish in Stamford. The other two children born after 1834 took on the birth parish of their mother and were sent with her to St John’s. Gonerby was in the Grantham Union so that child was sent to the workhouse there. There was only one workhouse in the Stamford Union, the new one on Barnack Road, so it is possible the two St George’s parish children may have had a little more contact with their mother, but this would have been severely limited. Ah, but the system did save money. In March 1839 the Stamford Mercury [1.3.1839:4.6] reported that nationally the new system was saving 36% upon the cost of the former system: £4,808,735 in 1837 as against £7,511,219 in 1834. In the Stamford Union the saving was much greater at 45%: £3,609 against £6,599, with the six Stamford parishes averaging 42.5%: £1,508 against £2,621. In the Mercury piece on the national picture stress was placed upon the savings made in administration and employment of officers and, additionally, the Stamford figure is probably distorted by proceeds from the sale of the former parish workhouses put up for auction in the second half of 1836. But the Mercury explanation doesn’t account for the bulk of the saving which was almost certainly due to the elimination of outdoor relief. Isn’t it strange that no reference is made to this by the contemporary report when it was one of the major reasons for the legislation. Perhaps the world wasn't so old fashioned then, the official explanation only containing one half of the story, and that the unimportant half. It shows what a long training our modern politicians have had. As an aside, it is not clear where all the former parish workhouses were. The site of the St Martin's one is known because it survives in Water Street, until a few years ago occupied by Hopkins the electrician and recently converted to a house. It still retains on its south side the large windows by which the inmates were able to see to carry out their prescribed work. For others we know the street or area, for example, the St John's workhouse was in Scotgate, but not the precise location. Let us then recap on the Church's position. As we have seen, the parish first administered the poor law totally and then, after 1834, elected guardians to the general union board and acted as a poor rate raising and collecting unit. The parish's responsibilities were diminished, but it hit the incumbent even harder. Instead of having to deal only with his parish overseers over whom he could exert influence, he now had to deal with a large organisation of 37 local parishes, from Clipsham to Stibbington, which appointed their own full-time officials as well as relying on the parish overseers. Having said this, such were the mores at the time that it is unlikely that any parson would have disagreed with decisions such as given over Catherine Whaley. It was in keeping with thinking of the time which in turn was in accord with the contemporary Christian principles and interpretation of theology. But practically, it did remove the direct dealing with problems from the local community and substituted bureaucracy for personal contact. THE CHURCH RATE One area of great concern to everyone in the early 19th century parish was the church rate. This was the right of the parish to charge a general rate for the repair of the parish church. In a homogeneous society where the whole population supported the national church, it would have been a sensible system, but when there were considerable numbers of dissenters and Roman Catholics about – and if you remember, between 30 and 35% of the churchgoing population in Stamford was non-Anglican (or just over 13% of adults in the town’s total population [using Mann’s calculation]) - then it was bound to cause trouble. The dissenters and Roman Catholics had a legitimate grievance in resisting paying for the repair of a building they disliked intensely, was the home of a national church which they felt to be doctrinally wrong and which they only entered unwillingly (before their own registration) to be married or buried from. There was also a feeling that the whole matter of quarrelling over the church rate or tithe (which I shall come to) was unseemly and un-Christian. It is interesting to note that in November 1838 the Mercury printed a long extract from the London Globe on this very subject stating that the feuding and wrangling over these things was promoting a general spirit of contention and animosity in congregations. Despite this, there are numerous examples of the church rate being levied in Stamford to repair our six (as there were at the time) medieval parish churches: for example, St Mary’s called emergency vestry meetings in 1841 to levy a rate to deal with the huge split that had appeared in the church causing the chancel to separate from the nave; and the church rate was used to help finance the various repewings of Stamford churches that took place during the 1840s and 1850s. But there were also moments of levity in the vestry meetings. At a St Mary’s vestry in April 1852 a dissenter complained that he was being charged for payments made to the church organist and choir as part of his church rate. These were not part of the fabric and therefore illegal. Some wag pointed out that this individual’s house had a rateable value of £11 when it was worth well in excess of £20 and as the Mercury says , “It was resolved...to make him pay one way if he would not another”. Other oddities, but of a more generous nature, can also be recorded, as in May 1851 when the St Mary’s vestry voted itself an additional and voluntary church rate to allow a young girl in the parish to emigrate to New Zealand. The rector was himself emigrating and was to escort her. If one were really cynical one might wonder if this might have been a cheap way of getting the fare of the rector’s personal maidservant paid, but the Stamford Mercury , normally quick to pick up such things, made no such comment. For many years the church rate had been stoutly resisted, especially in the towns, not only by the dissenters and Roman Catholics but also by many Anglicans who had accepted that the situation was unfair. There had been a great outcry in St Michael’s parish over the rebuilding of the church which had collapsed in 1832. The rector’s attempts to enlist help f rom the parish for rebuilding was met by strong resistance, and in the end it was rebuilt totally by subscription. This, however, is a special case as the parish felt, not without reason, that it should not foot the bill for rebuilding as the responsibility for the church's collapse lay firmly at the door of the rector. If you remember, he had had the “brilliant” idea of enlarging the church's seating capacity by pulling down every other one of the medieval columns, not apparently realising that columns have a structural significance. Church rates staggered on until 1868 when Gladstone abolished them, but there is one interlude in between which, if it had succeeded, would have had major repercussions today. The church rate had been abolished in Ireland in 1833 and an attempt was made the next year by Lord Althorp to do the same for England. Althorp's bill placed the responsibility for the cost of repairs to England's ancient parish churches at the door of the Treasury. Though the bill passed comfortably through the House of Commons, it got lost in the dying days of Lord Grey's Whig government and was never resurrected. But what a change it would have made! It was not until 1977 that state aid was made available for church repairs and even today the roughly £10 million pounds given to churches by the state is rather more than counterbalanced by the £17 million taken back in VAT (just to keep the lecture topical!). Gladstone's approach in 1868 was quite different from Althorp's. In the intervening years, the growing unpopularity of the church rate had led to the principle of church repair by voluntary subscription or contribution, as at St Michael's, being widely accepted. All Gladstone did was to capitalise on this. It was very sensible at the time, with well over half the population committed to the Established Church, and additionally let the government off an extra financial burden, but it makes it very hard for us today when a tiny proportion of the population bears almost the whole cost of this major part of the nation's heritage. Actually, to be technically correct, Gladstone did not abolish church rates, he just made them voluntary instead of compulsory. Every Anglican parish still has the theoretical right to levy a church rate, but you can refuse to pay. That’s why they’re never levied! TITHES The other great grievance of non-Anglicans was having to contribute towards the stipend, or salary, of the Church of England p arson through the payment of tithes. Again, this was a medieval custom that ultimately derived from biblical Judaic practice and meant that a tithing, or tenth, of all gain that the land produced was to be given to the church. Originally this had been in the form of produce and was the reason for the great medieval tithe barns that still dot the land. Tithes had always been unpopular and people would go to infinite ends to under-declare or get out of paying. The general attitude is summed up in this late 17th century song from John Dryden’s play King Arthur, and set to music by Henry Purcell. One particularly rumbustious song sung by a chorus of yokels has a verse: We’ve cheated the parson, we’ll cheat him again, For why should a blockhead have one in ten. One in ten, one in ten, For why should a blockhead have one in ten. In Stamford the amount paid in tithes depended on the holding in the open fields. The position was regularised with the Tithe Act of 1836 which allowed the commutation of tithes in kind for a cash payment, a tithe rentcharge based on the average price of wheat, barley and oats over a period of seven years. After the act these sums were generally assessed at about two thirds of the real value of the tithe, but incumbents were happy as previously they had been lucky if they had been able to prise half out of unwilling land owners. The tithe rentcharge, being set by a tithe commissioner, saved a tremendous amount of unseemly wrangling between land owners and incumbents. In actual practice, cash payments had been made for some years and it was in May 1828 that James Torkington, the Stamford Town Clerk, came to an agreement for a cash settlement with the Rev Thomas Wilkinson, vicar of All Saints’, the largest and most influential parish in the town. It was then agreed that the vicar would receive £370 per annum in lieu of the great and small tithes. This was based on about 1,200 to 1,300 acres of the Stamford open fields lying in All Saints’ parish and a tithe of about 6/- per acre (or 7/6d when the poor rate, highways rate and land tax were added). Accordingly, in May 1839 All Saints’ became the first parish to be assessed under the new system. The tithe commissioner, Mr Rawlinson, accepted the principle established by Torkington and Wilkinson and set the tithe at the same level, £370, though based on a more recent set of averages. I imagine the new vicar, Nicholas Walters, was delighted, not only because £370 per annum was a handsome salary in those days, but because he had scored a personal victory over the Town Clerk. He had secured the small tithes of £30 (for potatoes, clover, etc.) that Wilkinson had been persuaded to forego. Other parishes were not long in following All Saints' example, but as the century progressed tithes gradually fell into disuse. However, it was not until 1936 that the tithe rentcharge was finally extinguished after some civil disobedience by East Anglian farmers. It is not within the scope of this lecture to explain how this was compensated for; suffice it to say that sorting out Anglican clergy stipends was a very long process involving the Ecclesiastical Commission and Diocesan Boards of Finance. They were only finally sorted out, if anything can ever be said to be finally sorted out in the Church of England, as recently as 1976 with an Endowments and Glebes Measure . REGISTRATION The other major area where the established church became an arm of the state was that of registration - births, deaths marriages - and as before it became a grievance of Dissenters and Roman Catholics. At the beginning of the 19th century they were not allowed to be married or buried from their own churches (unless you were a Quaker or a Jew who had had special acts of parliament passed for them). The need of the modern state to have more information about its own people led in 1812 to an act of parliament in an attempt to get the information in the parish registers recorded more formally. From now on registers had to be given proper protection and quarterly returns of births deaths and marriages had to be made to the diocesan registrar. Dissenters and Roman Catholics were deliberately excluded from this process because, as the church historian Chadwick says, "their ministers were of insecure tenure, their chapels impermanent [and] their registers chaotic". That, as far as the last criticism is concerned, the same applied to many Anglican churches did not make any difference, and so for another quarter of a century Dissenters and Catholics had to use the parish church for marriage and burial. But 1836 was not 1812 and during the intervening period the restricting Test and Corporation Acts had been repealed and the Catholics emancipated. The situation was resolved in the latter year with a series of registration acts. From then on Dissenters and Catholics could be married from their own churches, as long as they were licensed. The Star Lane Independents were licensed in July 1837, as were the Roman Catholics at about the same time. The acts also relieved pressure for burials in the already overcrowded parish church graveyards, but this problem in Stamford was not solved for another twenty years, until the new town cemetery was opened off Little Casterton Road in 1854. EDUCATION/SCHOOLS It was, I think, the Jesuits who said, "Give me the child for the first seven years and I’ll give you the man.” They were. of course, talking about education; more precisely education into a particular mode of thought. The churches at this time were certainly not slouches in putting this axiom into practice and were the great stimulus for the advancement of education. There is no doubt they were doing this for altruistic reasons, but there is equally no doubt they were each operating their own agenda. In this age, before universal state education, schooling was given to those who could afford to pay for it, and for those who couldn't, it was provided at a profit by the supplier - the commercial profit of the private schools, or the profit to society of a better educated people who emerged from schooling as sympathetic or an adherent to your particular brand of Christianity. In either case, the promotion of social order and the habit of obedience to one's social superiors was also an essential ingredient. You probably have a vague memory from your schooldays that the first schooling for the poor was provided by Sunday schools, popularised and put on a national footing by Robert Raikes from 1780 onwards. While this interpretation is generally correct, like so many things we learnt at school it is a little simplistic. In Stamford, for instance, the Stamford Grammar School, or Radcliffe's School as it was then known, was founded in the 16th century to provide education for a number of poorer boys; and the Wells Charity or Petty School was endowed and established in St Peter's Street in 1604 to educate as many boys as his old house would accommodate, according to the will of Stamford shoemaker Edward Wells. Bluecoat School was founded in 1704 and was able to educate and clothe about 40-50 poor boys. The first Stamford Sunday school, on the other hand, seems to have been St Martin’s, founded about 1785. By 1801 it had about 270 children attending, though this is in conflict with the opinion of William Wilberforce, the famous reformer, who passing through Stamford in 1798 commented, “At Church, miserable work. Remnant of Sunday school, eight children! I have never seen a more apparently irreligious place”. However, it was not long before other parishes had set up their own Sunday schools and the Dissenters were quick to follow. While religious instruction would be given in all schools, instruction in the three Rs would also be given in the Sunday schools. There is a note in 1822 that the Independent Chapel (now URC) Sunday school in Star Lane was giving reading and spelling instruction to about 100 children. For the majority of these poor, the Sunday school would be the only formal education they would receive. By the early 19th century, schools were being set up by the dozen . A longside the large number of tiny dame schools, for example, Miss Bee in Barn Hill, the Misses Lowe in St Mary's Place, or Miss Wakefield in Broad Street, more substantial establishments were set up either by the parishes directly or with strong religious connections. In 1815 money left over from a lying-in charity helped establish the National School for Girls (later St George's School) which with the Bluecoat school for boys became one of the major schools for the poor of the town. The name National is significant because it meant the school had almost certainly accepted a grant from the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church, and therefore had a particular religious affiliation. The National Society was founded in 1811 but three years later a non-denominational society, the British and Foreign Schools Society, was founded to counter this established church influence. Though claiming to be non-denominational, it inevitably had strong Dissenter influence. In 1838 when the Bluecoat School was rebuilt and expanded on St Peter's Hill (now the Masonic Centre) to cater for 150 boys instead of the previous 40-50, it stated its education would be according to the British and Foreign Schools Society system. They had presumably accepted a grant from them. In this case there was no inevitable Dissenter connection, for only sixteen years before the author of Drakard's History of Stamford had been fearful that Bluecoat, like the girls’ National School, was going over to the Madras system, which had Anglican associations. However, the result was that it attracted large numbers of Dissenters’ children and went down that path. Because of the mix of its children, it decided not to teach the catechism which aroused the fury of the Anglican clergy. They were so agitated that they refused to attend the first public examination at the school in 1839 which led the Stamford Mercury , a paper itself with strong liberal/nonconformist leanings, to accuse them of bigotry. It was inevitable there would be a school in the town under dissenter influence to counterbalance the growth of the Anglican parish schools. St Martin's day school was founded in 1833 and the new building of 1855 by the London architect Henry Clutton still survives today as the Stamford High School music school on the corner of Kettering Road. Later there followed St John's School on the corner of Scotgate, All Saints' School in Austin Street and St Michael's School on the corner of Recreation Ground Road (now the site of the Salvation Army). As well as this, the Anglican parish would have considerable influence in the other schools. The vicar and churchwardens of All Saints' awarded the lease of the Wells Charity School and this same triumvirate of incumbent and churchwardens in St George's parish dominated the National School. Side by side with the day schools the Sunday schools flourished to give the number of 1,700 attending on a typical Sunday as we saw earlier in the 1851 religious census figure. As we have seen, they taught the same subjects as at the day schools and in many cases the same day school masters and mistresses taught the Sunday schools in the same buildings. From the 1830s the government made small grants available for school building and during the 1840s these expanded hugely. It is most likely that the Stamford parish school building programme benefited from them. From 1840 grants were conditional on the schools accepting independent inspection and management, but as we have seen from the Bluecoat case above, and numerous other earlier examples, Stamford was already doing this. In other ways Stamford was conventional and followed accepted practices - the monitorial system of teaching in the earlier part of the century and the discredited 'payment by results' system in the 1850s and 60s. When the Forster Education Act was passed in 1870, Stamford was so well endowed with schools, all the major ones with strong religious connections, there was no need to establish new Board Schools. The result today is that of five primary schools in Stamford, three of them are Church of England schools, and of the other two, one of them, Bluecoat, has strong religious associations. LIBRARIES Alongside the schools we must not forget the libraries, for again, the church was the first institution to provide such facilities. Church or parish libraries go back to the Middle Ages and there survives today a medieval chained library in Hereford (All Saints, recently moved to the cathedral). St Wulfram’s at Grantham also has a surviving chained library, and a library was established at St Mary’s Stamford in the early 17th century by Richard Bannister, churchwarden but better known as an eye surgeon. Not all the works in the parish libraries were religious but naturally they were what we should call rather heavyweight, with a preponderance of theology and the Church Fathers, plus a smattering of commentaries, philosophy and the natural sciences. The library at St Mary’s, which still survives in the church, is distinguished because by the early 18th century it had been reformed and in 1721 had become one of the earliest lending libraries in the country. At least one book remains there that retains its contemporary list of borrowers on the flyleaf. This lending library predates considerably the first public subscription library in Stamford which was established in 1770. Wider public readership was only attained by the establishment of the Stamford Institution in 1842, but this secular library was rivalled by a parish library set up by All Saints in 1846, where the poor of the parish could borrow books every Monday morning for their edification - from Mr Maxey's establishment in St Peter's Street. It was, of course, not until 1906 that the present public library was established in a refurbished Portico, High Street, where it still remains. GENERAL CHARITY I said I was going to talk about the social side of the general charitable nature of the various churches in the town. Obviously, what we have just been considering - the poor law, the rates, tithes, education – all were important in a wider social context and there is evidence to show that Stamford followed national movements inspired by Christian and humanitarian concerns. For example, in June 1832 the Stamford Mercury records a proposal to establish an anti-slavery society here and s imilarly notes celebrations in the town when abolition of slavery in the British colonies was achieved the following year. What I wish to avoid now is merely a list of good works or individual charities run by the various religious groups. It would take a whole lecture just to run through the annual Stamford social calendar listing things like the regular charity balls - Lying-In Charity just before Christmas, Dorcas Charity just after, etc.- or the annual appearance of the soup kitchens in winter. These do not seem to have been treated as emergencies at the time for they were so regular as to be part of the annual calendar. The only variation was their number, which depended on the severity of the weather. Another important feature of the social round was the religious lecture. They were extremely popular, though to our eyes hardly distinguishable from sermons, and individual lectures regularly attracted audiences of well over a thousand. It rather puts into the shade what we consider the undoubted success of these museum lectures. To show how far this extended, during the 1830s and 40s even the smallest parish in the town, St Mary's, not only had a curate but also a separate lecturer (just as Boston retains today). The Victorians still have a very bad press today and one of the most serious charges against them is that of hypocrisy. Nowhere, apparently, is this better illustrated than in contrasting, say, the establishment of the Church of England Temperance Society tea-room in Broad Street (now the dry cleaner on the corner of Ironmonger Street) with the alcohol problems suffered by the clergy themselves: for example, MacDougall of St Michael's who had to be protected by his friends after becoming 'tired and emotional' in church one day, or Micklethwaite of Little Casterton being found staggering drunkenly up Nags Head Passage one day in 1907. But this is as much our hypocrisy as theirs. In making these judgments, we are ignoring the equally blatantly obvious cases of double thinking that pervade our own society, but at the same time we wilfully misunderstand the Victorian epoch, which was grappling with changes in society that were the equal of anything we see today. And they were doing this, unlike today, in a world less used to change. Also, until numbers become statistically significant, individual cases can only be anecdotal. We may also find it difficult to understand the feelings of guilt felt by the Victorians - they would call this contrition - but can we imagine today state sponsored national Days of Humiliation and Fasting? There w ere at least four of them during the 19th century: 1832 and 1853 for cholera, 1854 for the Crimean War, 1857 for the Indian Mutiny. Man made wars perhaps need contrition, but for Acts of God such as cholera we find this a little harder to take. The days themselves were commemorated during the week and, as the Stamford Mercury remarked in 1854, they were “not marked by large church attendances but all businesses (were) suspended”. These days also illustrate what an age of transition the 19th century was. The stimuli for the days were perhaps feelings left over from less rational ages, but as the Mercury shows, they were not generally well supported and other sources tell us that they were actively opposed by the more advanced. This opposition included Roman Catholics and Dissenters who were protesting against the established church connection, and within the established church itself, Anglo-Catholics who saw the days as government interference in church affairs. The categories I've illustrated show the major concerns of the Victorians: education and the care of those less fortunate than themselves, spurred by strong religious convictions but tinged with a primitive sort of guilt. We can certainly say that what they did was patchy and ineffective, even that they were being hypocritical and selfish and paying lip service to good works, or that they were not living to the biblical standards they set themselves. We may even take a Marxist view and see the Victorian Bourgeoisie doing just enough to protect itself from the unbridled disaffection of the urban poor. All these criticisms may be true in part but they fall into the trap of judging a previous generation by our own standards and are therefore not very useful. It is much more fruitful to judge them on their own terms and then we can see how the age reacted to the severe problems they were facing. THE DENOMINATIONS For the final section tonight, I said I would look at the different denominations in the town to see how they interacted with each other, or more accurately, how they were viewed and reacted to by the townspeople. I shall start with the Dissenters. Since the second half of the 17th century dissenters, that is, all the Protestant non-conformist groups, had been barred from public office, particularly from standing for parliament. During the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment there had been a growing toleration, so that by 1828 the removal of the legal barriers of the Test and Corporation Acts was little more than a formality. The Independents (later the Congregationalists, now the URC) had a chapel in Stamford before 1680 but this was burnt down by the mob on the death of Queen Anne in 1714. A new chapel in Star Lane replaced it in 1720, and the present chapel in almost the same position was built in 1819. The Methodists first built here in 1803 on their present site, and that chapel, with the lovely carvings of Faith, Hope and Charity on the gable, still survives behind the present 1880s Gothic chapel. The General Baptists, who had good 16th and 17th century antecedents, were recorded in Stamford during September 1829 holding a mass baptism by general immersion in the River Welland; the first time this had happened in Stamford for 100 years said the Stamford Mercury . This became a regular event the novelty of it attracting ever growing crowds, up to 1,800 a few years later. Flushed by their success the Baptists were able to build themselves a chapel in 1835, significantly on the banks of the Welland in Bath Row. It survives as the pair of buildings that come down to the street front just west of the Bath House. However, the General Baptists did not fare well as they were recorded in the Mercury as having gone by 1846, and there is no trace of them in the 1851 religious census. I think I may know why. Some years before, two young Church of England curates, William Tiptaft and Joseph Philpot, serving in parishes near Oxford, became great friends and after studying and praying together grew so disillusioned with the Church of England that they seceded. They became itinerant preachers in the John Wesley mould, but were, what we should call today, Strict Baptists. William Tiptaft, who was a natural if fiery preacher, came from the east Midlands and had two sisters living in Oakham and Stamford. His Stamford sister was married to the brewer Joseph Phillips, and who, reading between the lines, was caused endless embarrassment by her brother. On one of Tiptaft's frequent visits to Stamford he met Dr Merveilleux (pronounced Mirvilow), doctor at the infirmary and a strong Independent of Star Lane Chapel, who actually lived on this very site [Stamford Arts Centre] - his front room is now the booking office. Merveilleux was so impressed with him that he arranged for him to preach in the Assembly Rooms next door in October 1831. With his local upper-class connections, Tiptaft drew a large and miscellaneous audience including the cream of society. Unfortunately, his normal open-air-from-the-back-of-a-farm-waggon preaching style didn't go down too well with the cream of society, especially as he was not only haranguing the Church of England but the general dissenters as well. Many walked out and the rest stayed to shout. His sister, Mrs Phillips, is reported as commenting “William is mad!” The uproar was such that the Assembly Rooms could never again be hired for Tiptaft, but Merveilleux was so impressed he immediately left the Independents and determined to build a chapel for the strict preaching of the gospel. This was more difficult than imagined for, after the uproar, it would be difficult to get a site and the intention must at all costs be kept from the ears of the Marquess. Merveilleux secretly acquired a piece of land on the waste to the north of the town and the chapel, built entirely at his own cost, was erected in 1834. This is the North Street Particular Baptist Chapel. Tiptaft’s friend, Philpot, became minister – perhaps Tiptaft was too restless a soul to settle yet in one place – and such was the fervour of the preaching that numbers grew, and a gallery had to be added in 1838. This is perhaps why the general Baptists disappeared; they faded away or were absorbed by the competition. It is worth adding that Joseph Philpot, who married Tiptaft's niece and settled in 10 Rutland Terrace, became famous in his own right as editor of The Gospel Standard which we are told circulated widely among the troops during the Crimea. Perhaps beyond the scale of dissent are the Mormons, or the Church of the Latter- day Saints. This new sect, only founded by Joseph Smith in America in 1830, had established a chapel here in Gas Lane as early as 1836, eleven years before Brigham Young led the Mormons on their mammoth trek to establish Salt Lake City. Though seating only fourteen people, the Stamford chapel was exclusively a religious building. People were very suspicious of such groups and typical is the case at Ryhall in May 1849. While holding a total immersion baptism ceremony in the River Guash, they were set upon by the local rowdies and received a severe ducking, and a second attempt two weeks later met with the same fate. However, today, they are still firmly established in Stamford at 16 Broad Street, having moved there about 15 years ago from what is now the museum education room and store. As I hinted when outlining the 1851 religious census, there was a traditional fear of Roman Catholicism in England, and this went back to the 16th century. There still lingered the old Elizabethan concept equating Roman Catholicism with treason and as late as 1780 London had been paralysed for four days by the anti-Catholic Gordon riots. Like the Dissenters, Catholics were penalised and could not hold public office, but while removing barriers from Dissenters was relatively easy, removing them for Roman Catholics was a much thornier problem. However, with the development of an industrial society it was quite clear that it would be impossible to continue sanctions against large sections of the population on grounds of religion, and Catholic emancipation in the long-term became inevitable. It was finally achieved in 1829 by the Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister, helped by the conversion of Sir Robert Peel to the cause, though it was the final nail in the coffin of the old Tory party already in its death throes. On the local scene, there had been enough toleration in Stamford for the Roman Catholics to build a chapel in All Saints Street as early as 1825 and by 1834 this had been rebuilt. On the other hand, the run up to emancipation had seen a petition presented at the town hall opposing concessions to Catholics and at the same time the British Reformation Society "to educate Catholics in Protestant beliefs" visited Stamford. In 1837 further diatribes against Catholicism are recorded in the Mercury , but what is more surprising is that this anti-Catholicism continues all through the 19th century, though now the debate turns on purely religious arguments rather than political ones. For example, in one of the winter lecture series in the 1850s (these are the sort I mentioned before as attracting audiences of over 1,000), two of the lectures seem to be devoted entirely to anti-Catholic propaganda, while as late as 1877 Roman Catholicism was controversial enough to provoke public disorder. In January of that year a visiting lecturer to the Oddfellows Hall, a Dr Hammond, a recent convert to Rome, provoked "a scene of the wildest disorder and confusion" and had to be escorted back to the Midland Railway Station surrounded by a mob of several hundred people. [Waterfield's, Annals of Stamford , 26 January 1877.] But it was not just against the other denominations that hate and vituperation were directed in the 19th century. The Church of England was just as happy to turn on itself and hand out harsh criticism to fellow members whose behaviour did not accord with their own. The introduction of the Tractarian ideas of the Oxford movement from the 1830s onwards is a suitable case in point. There had always been a tension within the Church of England between high and low, Catholic and Protestant; and while Protestantism had dominated the church since t he reign of Elizabeth, its Catholic nature had never been forgotten. It received fresh impetus under the influence of Newman, Keble and Pusey. The idea of the transcendence and mystery of God expressed in worship, a Church with authority, together with a dash of Romanticism looking back to the Middle Ages and the Gothic Revival in architecture, made Tractarianism very attractive to the younger more progressive clergy, especially those who worked in the urban slums. The same sort of dissatisfaction that had pushed Tiptaft and Philpot to extreme Protestantism pushed these other priests towards Catholicism. Unfortunately, the fear of Roman Catholicism was so great that it extended to any perceived Romanising tendency within the Church of England itself. Not that it expressed itself in Stamford very early. The Reverend Dennis Edward Jones, who came to St John’s in 1833 (and stayed 50 years), was accused by the Stamford Mercury in 1845 of introducing Puseyite practices into his church, but upon examination it seems that he had only taken to preaching in a surplice and had introduced chairs on each side of the communion table. But even this was seen to be Romish in an intensely Protestant town. Eleven years later when the architect Edward Browning restored St John's and painted the medieval angels on the roof in bright colours, the Stamford Mercury , still on the offensive, attacked this for making the church as gaudy as continental Papist ones. However, despite this and other hysterical outbursts, one in 1879 directed at the 'tin tabernacle' in Water street - an offshoot of St Martin's erected to take the poor excluded from the main church because of the appropriated pews - and another in 1882 screaming that "Ritualism or semi-Romanism (was) creeping into Stamford", Anglo- Catholicism did not really come to Stamford until 1890. It was then introduced to St Mary's by an aristocratic young incumbent who immediately instigated a major restoration of the church by the famous London Arts & Crafts architect John Dando Sedding. He paid three quarters of the cost of this himself. It is interesting that this young rector, Carew Hervey St John-Mildmay, came to Stamford just at the same time as his Bishop, Edward King of Lincoln, was being prosecuted in the courts for Anglo-Catholic practices, for such outrageous things as making the sign of the cross and having lighted candles on the altar during the communion service. Internecine warfare of this sort was getting the Church a very bad name. But Mildmay was a very forthright young man who did not mind stirring up controversy and his antics at St Mary’s had the town stirred up for years. By this time there was another newspaper in Stamford, the Stamford and Rutland Guardian , a paper that would give The Sun a run for its money in tackiness and pandering to the basest instincts, and it had a field day over what was going on at St Mary’s. Surpliced choirs were a high church novelty at this time and the Guardian thought it highly amusing to see Mildmay driving his surpliced choir down the aisle “like a flock of sheep”, and at the archdeacon’s visitation poked fun at the “meek and gentle way” the assembled clergy “glowered at each other during certain ritualistic practices”. More seriously the journal The Protestant Observer thundered, “No Evangelical churchman can look to the future without anxiety. The ritualistic ornaments are intended to teach those false doctrines to the eye which in due course may be heard from the pulpit. Where will Mr Mildmay end? Having started with his face towards Rome, will he ever reach the end of his journey? (In Mildmay’s case, the answer was yes, though not without a bit of dabbling in Spiritualism first!). But what Mildmay was chiefly remembered for outside the church was the non-religious impact of his work. He was the man who got rid of the carillon that had played hymn tunes on the St Mary’s bells since the early 18th century, and had stopped the centuries old practice of ringing the curfew bell each evening. St Mary’s continued to cause controversy in the town, for after the brief interlude in the first few years of this century when one of the rectors suddenly declared himself to be a socialist and was forced to leave town by the Marquess, there was a great deal of fuss when the church began to use incense in the 1920s. When this was done at a joint service, it provoked intense letters of protest to the Mercury by other Anglican clergy of the town. This was perhaps the last time when this sort of inter-church rivalry showed itself so openly, and while similar attitudes simmered under the surface until the 1950s, there has been a marked sense of co-operation and ecumenism since the 1960s. But it is at just this time that the general public found the churches to be less relevant in their lives and stopping the inter-church bickering perhaps came too late. What then are we to conclude from this individual, perhaps idiosyncratic, trip through the social aspects of church affairs in the 19th century? The biggest changes affected the Church of England as it had to come to terms with the change from being an arm of the secular administration to being a purely ecclesiastical organisation. All the churches had to adapt to living in a new industrial age, and the transition was putting a strain on all sections of the community. How did they do? Well, first of all they were largely reactive to change rather than pro-active. With a few notable exceptions they reacted to change by battening down the hatches. The churches were worried by the 1851 religious census and saw that they were not getting to church as many people as they imagined or hoped for. However, the census was an isolated and unique event and a single point on a graph is no use for predicting trends. Even so, there was a general suspicion among more intelligent churchmen that numbers were on a downward slope and an appreciation that the Churches were not being effective, especially in the larger industrial cities. The Evangelicals, and later the Anglo-Catholics, had made some inroads here, but were under-resourced and the Church at large did not, or perhaps could not, capitalise on these initial moves. This led some Anglo-Catholics to go down the road of Christian Socialism (which in one of its wilder manifestations saw the red flag flying from the tower of Thaxted church during the 1920s), but their efforts were small compared with the size of the problem, and were anyway overtaken in this century by state involvement. Typically, the Anglo-Catholic movement came late to Stamford - at the very end of the century – and, being Stamford, was concerned more with ceremonialism, church restoration and personal piety than with mass evangelism or social reform. The brief flirtation with Christian Socialism in the first decade of the new century was soon brought to an end by the combined hostility of the parish, town and Marquess, and the personal inadequacies of the rector. The other great debate, that between Christianity and science, is hardly visible in Stamford. I stand to be corrected in the light of future evidence, but all the indications are that if one looked at church affairs during the second half of the 19th century one would not know that Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution even existed. The Stamford Institution did a little on him but this merely emphasises the growing gulf between the secular and church worlds. In general, the Church was largely at a loss as to how to come to terms with the changing situation it faced during the 19th century. The removal of the secular powers from the Church of England was a marvellous opportunity to redirect its energies to tackle the problem of falling church numbers and develop a new spirituality in an industrial world increasingly dominated by science. That it failed to do so and was content to retreat into internecine warfare was a huge missed opportunity. It has only been since the Second World War that remedial action has been applied. All we can hope is that it is not “too little, too late”! John F H Smith. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next